and women. because there's a new mirrors and they very ranging from poor quality c.c.t.v. images to the fact that the algorithms are trained so to speak using faces at a mostly white and male this technology and looks like a really nice quick fix to the fact that we have not got as much money to pay for human intelligence operations so it sounds great in theory the problem is if they work very well on people who are not white men which is quite a lot of the population on the planet being arrested wrongfully means that you get put into predictive policing algorithms that the more often you're having contact with law enforcement the more you are at risk of being stopped again even erroneous lee and also people in your network because they build the network out of number just about you proponents of facial recognition in the u.k. will argue that issues with accuracy can be fixed they aren't wrong technology can always be improved on what's

a bigger concern is that currently there are no laws governing the use of facial technology in the country whether it's the state using it or even private companies i think what's really troubling at the moment is the technology is being rolled out without legislation and empowered regulators this is not technology to have a very good track record of being accountable for i can find out who is using it under what circumstances what we've done with the data where that stored what's the track record of cybersecurity on keeping that data protected all of the things we have no idea has just been rolled out when people feel that they're being observed all the time that has a really chilling effect which to things like your right to protest your right to go to a job interview to hang out with some friends to go to church these are things that perhaps the state doesn't have a right to keep an eye on the met police have defended the trials saying they quote and that members of the public or through post isn't leaflets but if the trial i was at wouldn't be the word. there was literally hundreds of people rushing through

the space and the chances of seeing the tiny signs reading the leaflets or even understanding what the unmarked van was being useful when minimal i stopped a few people to see what they thought of the trial. not the level of invasion of privacy but then we live in not wild in my opinion i think it's a good thing to have facial recognition because as long as you're not doing anything bad and it also helps the police track people down to be honest their technology is going out the moment this will be the norm all around the world so i think we just need to get used to it if you've done nothing wrong there's no issue i think if you really believe that the state has never done anything wrong to its citizens then you have nothing to fear from this technology but as we know no state has a perfect track record and we should not be putting so much power into the hands of the state on the police take a look around you in the world the technology is already being used by certain countries all you have to do is pick up a newspaper and see people who are being incarcerated in concentration camps in

china right now biometrics data is part of that that's how they're monitoring those people and tracking them and anyone who comes into contact with them right so there's your proof of concept of what could be done now it's really easy to go that would never happen here but your government can always change right so history is full of examples but even in the old democracies in times of war in times of economic difficulty people get voted into power who change so you have to think about how a system is being built and what it could be used for years down the road when there's a very different political flavor. the u.k. collects spine metrics from another key segment of the population one that many wouldn't even consider children if you're aware that schools have been recording the biometrics of children for the past 20 years it is estimated that since 1909 approximately 70 to 80. and of children in the u.k.

had interacted with some sort of biometric device in school picking is a parent campaign official rights and creator of the biometrics in school blog i think companies are putting the tech into a school setting because you put a compliant population in school children might ask. a question if they're being surveilled little bit more than general population some because they don't know any better the concern i have with biometrics in schools is that the way back in 1999 and throughout the whole of the next decade in 2000 is that whereas an adult population weren't using biometrics at all not even on phones and suddenly we had children as young as $3.00 and $4.00 using their fingerprint to get in and out of school systems the growth of affordable by metric technology means that fingerprints iris scans facial recognition and infrared palm scanning have been used to speed up access to canteens libraries registrations payments and lucky's a big selling point of course has been security by metric unable to access is seen

as a foolproof way of keeping school building safe however a big concern is how robust the systems are who has access to the biometric data is there a process for deletion and what happens if the system is compromised i also sent the puppet occasion a few years ago freedom of information request about are they checked the software they tekton kryten standards is that adhering to sort of international standards of the hardware is it secure nobody can answer no with never tech system no with that method and yet once national standards it's just seems to have sort of been going under the carpet and nobody's aware of you know what's in schools what's being sold to schools who are thugs as to whether or not there's been any biometric data breaches for entire generations of british schoolchildren questions of consent around their biometrics have been bypassed to a great extent it was only in 2012 that a law was enacted putting in place processes for consent to be given or withheld.

the usual effect of biometrics in schools however is that the sharing in use of very personal data and the implications of surveillance be normalized that's millions of british children who've been taught to understand that it's no big deal to hand over your body data in order to get a service or a product they don't understand how it can be abused unnecessarily there's no reason that they should understand it because nobody's helping them to understand it we haven't had public discussion about it the test but it's not it isn't necessarily the tag because we've got the tech already 6 that. and if you go into schools and you desensitise and normalize the surveillance technology the smart city is that already you know pretty so that objecting to it so i think is a good argument sort of for all to be a little bit. wary of the word smart especially when it sort of with smart cities or smart notorious because it is to sense the assailants. it would be one thing if extensive biometric systems would be just used by governments or state funded

organization like the un it would make the lack of accountability and accuracy or outdated security protocols any easier to live with but at least across many countries governments can be questioned and pressured to give answers of some. the reality however is that biometrics are increasingly being used by private companies shopping mall recruitment agencies online d.n.a. and ancestry services and even private security companies all of them a taking and using our by metrics and finding out how the technologies being used what daughter is being stored and with whom it's being shed not just today but also in the future involves a lot of probing because these transparent systems even some of them are seemingly benign. can pose a threat a lot of people for instance are really interested in finding out about their family history so they're handing over their d.n.a. to companies like. the unique combination of the world's largest d.n.a.

and family tree databases who can show you a more precise picture of your origin if you have the 5th and you were right about your d.n.a. with a private company than you do with law enforcement right there. in your head for just a moment and the implications through and from countries with your d.n.a. could be used to reveal for instance predispositions to health problems that you might have and in countries where there isn't national health insurance and you have to pay to be insured for your help. and you would never know maybe even how they got the data because this is all being potentially traded by 3rd party brokers because it's not illegal yet because no one's regulated it by metrics are really powerful. and they need to i.d. you to more reliably track you but also to judge and to make assessments about your personality and your behavior. there are companies that offer this exact service take for example on its website it says that leverage is

a i in video to provide comprehensive candid insights when a candidate takes a video interview there creating thousands of unique points of data a candidate to verbal and nonverbal cues give us insight into their emotional engagement thinking and problem solving style according to high view its services are already being used by big employers like unilever vodafone and dunkin donuts. this is something that's increasingly used in the real world is that the share range of things we can i do and the ways that we can use data to affect people's lives so for example machine learning systems are used to. recommend adverts and shop ensnares but they're also used to assess people for jail sentences and so if those algorithms have got problems whether they be technical accuracies or biassed with an algorithm we need to start trust and i've heard of issues. ryan kelly is

a researcher on computing and information systems at the university of melbourne he's been involved in an elaborate biometric experiment to raise awareness about the potentials and limitations of biometric analysis it's called biometric mera and i gave it a go using nothing but an image of my face the system produces a detailed report and its assessment of my age race level of attractiveness and even aspects of my personality ranging from happiness and weirdness to aggressiveness and responsibility to teach the algorithm to do this research is us human volunteers to judge thousands of photos for the same characteristics. every day yet you really do not heard it yet you're getting that right. now it's easy to laugh at the results or shrug them off as just a bit of fun but there's more to it than that. so one of the reasons it's important to teach people about the limitations of the intelligence in these kinds of

analyses is because people might assume that because it's done by a computer it's objective i'm correct and what they might not realize actually an operation like by much marrow draws on a data set of faces that are being rated by people and so those ratings contain human biases and so one example in the state so much of marius that anybody with a beard is classified as aggressive so of course i am classified as an aggressive person by biometric merit even though i don't think i am i hope i'm not so if an operation like this is the plot in the real world immediately people are classified perhaps unfairly and in ways that aren't actually my say so for example you could imagine a scenario where you have a set of job applicants and you want to make it easy for people to. kind of. filter them based on say responsibility so somebody who is responsible for the task might say oh i can use biometric merit to identify people who are high and responsibility without really realizing that it's not an accurate thing to do and there are

various problems associated with that regardless of those problems by metric technologies being developed and used at a rate that fire at strips the pace at which regulations are big created in many senses it feels as though it was sitting on a ticking time bomb we don't even have an affair field of ethics for technology there's voluntary codes by companies these are not legally enforceable you with a citizen or a consumer cannot use these to protect you in any way to derive no comfort from not so i think we're entering a really interesting space in terms of what it means to be human because as we become a more quantified world there's going to be a thought to temptation to take all data about you and reduce you to zeroes and ones that is what is coming and whether or not you want that to happen and have to be something that's discussed we're all in the technology out and saying that this is going to change the way that we work and live within the next 51020 years to me that's really worrying we need to elevate ethics for technology right to the top of

the agenda. my advice would be to know that no data is 100 percent secure. you should always be able to know who is taking your data how it's being used what right you have to correct or amend it if. i want or not you can delete it and that goes for law enforcement or any government branch in your country but also any private company that you might interact with if children are using technology. who owns the technology from the question and are they sharing it with anybody and i think generally being prudent keeping you know they still footprint to an absolute minimum and it is a good thing to do also as well and to don't use great so do you enjoy it it's amazing there's loads of information knowledge out there but just be very aware

that it's your data and data is very volatile. there is a huge group of people at work behind our screens and the power they have is massive that urge to keep swiping through your twitter feed that's just not the way we all click i agree to the terms and conditions that's just most of us never even give it a 2nd thought and actually that's design is what i really really explore is how designers are manipulated are you a viewer and the final episode all hail the algorithm.

right. odd 3 months of protests on an unprecedented scale that would virtually paralyzed hong kong what began as opposition to an extradition or escalated into a broader pro-democracy movement so how and why did this crisis develop and what would follow in the 2nd of 2 special reports people in power examines the causes and possible consequences of hong kong summer of defiance on al-jazeera. the most

memorable moment of al-jazeera was when i was on air as hosni mubarak fell with the crowds in tahrir square talking. to see. if something happens anywhere in the world al jazeera is in place we're able to cover news like no other news organizations. were able to do it properly. and that is our strength. is this is a worst case scenario which civil servants obviously have to prepare for. the u.k. prime minister boris johnson downplays his own government's report on the possible chaos of leaving the u.

without a deal. and doha everyone i'm kemal santa maria this is the world news from al-jazeera a u.s. house judiciary committee approves of vote that could ramp up in pitch but efforts against president onil trump a push for peace in sudan as the new prime minister meets armed groups trying to end the violence in the country stuff i'm looking at the misconceptions about vaccines as a summit in brussels highlights the benefits. bit of relief for the embattled prime minister as northern ireland's highest court dismissed a challenge to boris johnson's brags that strategy the court threw out a claim which i get a no deal breakers that would undermine the peace process of 9098 but johnson still faces mounting pressure after a scottish court declared his suspension of parliament unlawful critics are now

accusing him of misleading the queen on the matter jonah hill reports from london. m.p.'s have been forced into recess but for boris johnson the battle has shifted to the courts judges in northern ireland have joined those in england in declining to rule the prioritization of parliament illegal but scottish judges on wednesday said johnson's advice to the queen to suspend parliament had been unlawful and motivated by a desire to muzzle parliament did you lie to the queen when you advised her to provoke to suspend parliament absolutely not. and indeed i say that the high court in england plainly agrees with us but the supremes court will have to decide opposition m.p.'s meanwhile a clamoring to return to work after succeeding in forcing the government to release its internal operation yellow hammer report it contains worst case scenario predictions for a no deal breaks it clogged up ports fresh food and medicine shortages price rises

and civil unrest but of course no house of commons to scrutinise its findings that's why you know that's why i was so angry perot's because i should be in parliament at the moment with the ability to interrogate the prime minister and ministers now approach we can do that and the prime minister again this is a worst case scenario which civil servants obviously have to prepare for but in the last few months. in the 50 days since i've been prime minister we'd be massively accelerating our preparations boris johnson says and no deal breaks it is not his desired outcome he says he's doing everything he can to reach a new deal with the european union at an october leaders' summit just a few days after parliament is due to return no mention of the new law requiring johnson to seek a break city extension if no new deal emerges nor any detail on water new deal may

look like and again no parliament to ask any questions it's all pretty bewildering when viewed from brussels i think that is all planning to take the u.k. out of the european union without any deal but at the same time be in a position to blame the european union for inflexibility all eyes on the supreme court next week then with the government in the meantime giving each very best impression of being entirely unmoved jonah how al-jazeera london. over in the u.s. lawmakers have now voted to move forward with investigative procedures that could lead to impeachment hearings for president donald trump the committee voted along party lines it was approved over a unanimous republican opposition and allows the enhanced questioning of witnesses this is the 1st step in a very lengthy process that could eventually lead to an impeachment this could be gauged best to gauge that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles

of impeachment with respect to president trapped that is what we are doing so because of this crisis. so ph would vest a geisha is the legal difference between these 2. longer care to argue about the job equation more on this one from washington now with mike hanna. the house judiciary committee has passed a resolution specifying the investigative procedures that could lead at some stage to the impeachment of president trump now it's agreed on a series of measures such as it harnessed questioning of witnesses stuff as would be allowed to question a witness for one hour after the members have completed their questioning it also provides for the establishment of secret committees to hear evidence and of course the establishment of subcommittees to hear evidence now the one caveat to all of this and this pointed out by republicans on the committee who voted against it that

these rules were already in place or that the chairman had the power to impose these rules republicans using that as evidence that this is nothing more than political grandstanding an attempt to keep the issue or the word impeachment within the public debate none the less so these measures will be in place when the formal chief of staff campaign staff gives evidence before the committee next week now he's likely to be questioned by staffers after the committee members have finished their questioning this will be the 1st test of the rules that are now in place which republicans i'm asked to repeat say have always been in place anyway meanwhile mexico says it disagrees with a recent u.s. supreme court decision that's ruled in favor of president trumps latest effort to restrict immigration the court

a lot of ban on nearly all asylum applications that mexico border to go into effect so people will not have to seek asylum in the 1st safe country they travel through which effectively block's most applications with more now from mexico city. on the news of the ruling by the u.s. supreme court we heard from mexican foreign minister marcello a bit odd to say that this is a us issue and obviously we don't agree with and we have a different policy we also heard from the mexican president lopez and other who said that he had an excellent conversation over the phone with president trump of what must be irking leadership here in the mexican government is constantly having to adapt to pressures from the united states to do more to curb back migration and to changes within the united states' own national policies that have direct impacts here in mexico mexico has already been faced with pressure to curb back migration and the country has been successful in that showing a reduction of upwards of 50 percent in migrant numbers heading north toward the united states but the real impact of this policy change in the united states is

going to be felt by the migrants themselves of majority of whom are from central america countries like honduras el salvador as well as water mala but other countries as well countries in south america and africa as well as asia so we're talking about a potential of thousands of asylum applicants who could be stuck in mexico in eligible to apply for asylum in the united states in the big concern here in mexico is whether or not the country has the resources to handle this potential surge in asylum applicants. 2 stories out of sudan to tell you about one is the hundreds of protesters who hit the streets across the country demanding reform demonstrators say sudan's legal system is still dominated by members of former president omar over she is regime months after he was removed from office and when the country's new ruling coalition to remove judges who are loyal to her she has allies and they are calling for all former members to face justice we must sudan's new prime minister about 100 is making his 1st state visit to south sudan in his new role. as

hosting talks between the transitional government and several armed groups has made peace making with these groups fighting khartoum one of his main priorities because if you go back talking 2003 here since then thousands of people have been killed in civil wars between sudan's government and armed groups that includes the major conflict in darfur where fighting between downed groups of farmers and government forces displaced around 2 and a half 1000000 people fighting there has subsided over the past 4 years but the armed groups are still active skirmishes do continue to happen and so reaching peace has become a priority for the new transitional government but largely because it's a key condition for getting sudan off the u.s. sponsors of terrorism list although he has not hit morgan she is in juba. bilateral relations was on the agenda in the meeting between south sudan's president salva kiir mayardit and sudan's prime minister abdullah made south sudan his 1st foreign visit since he was appointed to his position last month the minister the prime minister came with some delegation of ministers to talk to their

counterparts here in south sudan and discuss the issues of trade border security and the country's economic relationship but that was not the what was on top of the agenda the prime minister upon his appointment said that peace would be the top priority in his transitional government and that he would be reaching out to the armed groups coalition who have been fighting the sudanese government for decades on wednesday south sudan mediated between the sudanese armed group coalition as the sudanese revolutionary front and the sudanese government who are represented by the suffering council and a pretty good station's principal was assigned to pave the way for further talks next month the prime minister is due to meet with members of the coalition to listen to their demands and try to pave way for what he says would be the biggest achievement office transitional period should be armed groups put down their guns and join the government to find peace and stability in sudan the body of former zimbabwean president robert mugabe is lying in state at a stadium in harare the same place he took his own says leader nearly 4 decades ago mugabe is to be buried on sunday but there are ongoing discussions between the

government and his family about exactly where he will be laid to rest. has more from her. body is now lying in wait. there's been so much that he's. buried the program just keeps on changing the late date. maybe a little bit. maybe a. liberal. when you light a big. party. right now they. are. make a great wife. is a crime and the various family members are also been meeting all day the government is if they look at the body not to believe everything they hear it sounds to me

that the that they are talking to them would not mean that it cranks i know where and when they will be read it but emotions are mixed in. here if they give it a jovial mood the people you see walking there they've just. got to see him one last time they got to take a bite if they did they will break. out the baby or neighborhood. how they don't have. people that have actually running water people are just strange and commenting in the what we need babies just. keep away from our. daily life in the country right now bob insisted it. was one. thing right now is the light. of the other. least 50 people have been killed when a train derailed in democratic republic of congo's southeastern province of

tanganyika a government minister says the accident happened 3 am local time in the town of my party in the news ahead google agree.