the forbidden real part one, the birth of, of done is done on i just, i hello, i'm marianne murphy with look 9 stories now. lebanon, finally has a new government with the countries still deep in crisis. and new cabinets is led by prime minister designate in achievement county 11 and richest man is out to save the country, but will have to fix an economy that's effectively collapsed. more than 80 percent of the population is now living in poverty with food and electricity, expensive and gas. a group of west africa and boys of held talks with guineas, new military leaders, leaders down to increasing diplomatic pressure. the mission from the economic community of west african states met with the deposed president of a con,

they and demanded his release. special forces soldiers behind the crew say they ousted him because of widespread poverty and corruption. the african union has also suspended the country after sundays, cuz we were talking about a community or nation that has suffered enough of high levels of poverty, economics type, nation inequities, crimes, as well as what they accused of the government of high 100 nist over the last 11 years, something the new military rulers. yeah. say they want to correct now. the fia, the real fear is that if they tell me community of west africa and the african union, go ahead with the threats of functions. this could watson can condition a poor guineas who already suffered enough under the previous government is reading please say they've caught 2 of 6 palestinian prisoners who escaped from

a maximum security jail on monday and were captured on mount precipice. a christian holy sight near the city of nazareth, for others are still on the run after digging a hole and breaking out of the prison, or escape that of a furious man on the cross israel and the occupied west bank. the united nations has condemn what it calls the taliban is increasingly violent response to journalist and peaceful protest. as the statement comes a day off, the 2 afghan reporters say they were tortured by taliban forces for covering a protest. the un also warned against the use of battens and whips on protest as and the use of live ammunition which killed several people. the acting taliban minister says any attacks on janice will be investigated all hell. the algorithm is next. i'll be back with the news hour after that ah

ah, i can unlock my phone with my face. you can access your bank accounts with your voice . and fingerprints are often the key information on a national id card. all of this face voice, fingerprint, biometrics, unique algorithmic measurements of us that are revolutionizing the process of identification. biometrics, a far from perfect. they convenience and seeming infallibility comes at a price. most crucially our privacy the l biometrics are individual unique. so much so that they've always served as

a gold standard for identification with really high levels of accuracy and strong security fingerprints and dna databases have been the mainstay for police and investigators the decades and across many parts of the world. people who are illiterate use thumbprints in place of written signature, and stephanie has been researching the growing use of biometrics. there's also your face now which has been recorded, so that's just your facial point and that's called facial recognition technology. your voice is biometric data. there's also something called a gate analysis which is how you walk. so those are ways that they could identify you. and another way is behavioral biometrics that might be your online behavior. so how you use your mouse, where you click on things as you go through the internet, but even how regularly are posting on facebook, there's a lot that you can, can get just from people's ordinary life. and that's why it's so important to have this debate and in societies,

we all are getting our consent about whether or not we want such to only being used . and if so, under what circumstances and with what regulatory checks the world is on a mission, a mission to give everybody a legal identity by 2030. that was a target sent by the united nations as part of that sustainable development goals campaign. the key segment of the population that you went to focusing on is more than 1000000000 people who currently have no way to prove their identity. the unverified include millions of refugees, traffic children, homeless and other people will never get a chance to establish documents and create a digital footprints that's so essential for more than line. here is zachary can the united nations well graham is using biometric technology. iris scans to provide aid to the can. 75000 syrian residue. refugees can shop for the groceries with the blink of an eye. no need for bank card or registration pages.

the system is quite aptly named i. when a shopper has sent iris, scanned, the world food program system, verifies the person's identity against the biometric database held by the un high commissioner for refugees. the u. n. h c. then it checks the account, confirms the purchase, and prints and i pay receipt. all of this happens in seconds and according to the world food program, this not only makes transactions quicker, but more secure than we use by your metrics authentication for 2 reasons. one to guarantee 100 percent accountability on the identity of the person tracing and using the assistance that we provide. and secondly, to facilitate the redemption process of the beneficiary by not using a card by not using a pin in camps, which is an environment where beneficiary tend to go just within

a market more people's times during the month for them going with their own iris. it's easier been going with a car for the pin the comes in and i can get it done. got my thought i was i did it wrong. i can do the thing which in the everything a be shipping process is very fascinating and a bit on this is a super high tech that's been rolled out and what you could call a low rights environment. sure. people here are under the protection of the united nation and have more rights than they would have in the war. signs of the countries they fled from such a syria. however,

they also have little choice when it comes to getting up there by new tricks, were acting out by new tricks. programs. taking somebody's biometric data from them is about the most personal data that you could take. these are not people who necessarily are in a position to ask for legal representation to have this explains them. second, if they don't want it, what is the alternative that they can exercise? instead? are they using behavioral psychology, something nudge theory to make it where it's just easier to hand over data, and then you get your food and your clothes and your money faster. because that would be unethical. we're testing out again, extremely experimental, really invasive technology on people who literally have some of the least rights and protections of anyone's when a middle class person living in france or germany or the united states, united kingdom or sweden, consent to, to use their iris to pay for things to transact,

probably not. it's easy to see the immense potential of the i pay system to track a disbursement smooth out payments and reduce the chances of corruption or fraud the well food programs this benefits go even further. they are able to monitor shopping habits and nutritional intake, and there's a possibility in the future that the credit histories of the refugees could help them open bank accounts or get in line. they also think they've got the security bid covered for the regulate the management of they could just throw at that a shot agreement with you. and so through that agreement, we are able to access the beta sensitive data, which again does not include the name, just the case, id, phone number, and location. we are confident that that data being a crypted is what protected reason why we are doing regularly data privacy and impact assessment on the project to guarantee that if

that new thread in the word we are able to pack of them and address them properly before they come to us you and hcr remain fully committed to their biometrics registration program so much though that they are rapidly expanding it with the aim of be active in 75 countries by 2020. the remains lots of problematic questions that have yet to be fully answered, such as is the tech school who has access and how can anyone plan for the unforeseen issues to come? these are the kinds of questions that have made other 8 organizations pause before jumping on board with biometric technology. in 2015, oxfam voluntarily imposed a moratorium on its use of biometrics and its work. it stated, given the number of unknowns around most effective operation and governance models and risks of this incredibly sensitive data falling into the wrong hands. we felt it was best not to become an early adopter. the one field in

which biometrics has long been used is security and surveys. and facial recognition is one of the most popular technologies right now. in china, there's been an exponential increase in the use of facial tracking and artificial intelligence to monitor citizens. the united states also currently operates one of the largest facial recognition systems in the world with a database of 117000000 americans with photos typically drawn from drivers licenses . and in the u. k. police forces have been trialing law facial recognition since 2016 at public spaces such as shopping centers, football matches, protest, music events, and crowded city spots. this green ban that's behind me here in central london is part of the playful recognition technology trial that's been run by the metropolitan police. and what it's doing is it's basically scanning people's faces when they were passed and then comparing that to

a database that has wanted offenders. so click on the met police say facial recognition could enable them to more easily protect people, prevent offenses and bring offenders to justice. however, privacy groups such as big brother, watch say, the technology is authoritarian and lawless groups, legal and policy officer research. this even goes so far as to say that facial recognition is possibly the most dangerous surveillance mechanism that's ever been invented. this facial recognition technology can capture up to 300 faces a 2nd, which could be around 800000 faces in a minute. it's a vast number of people who in the police can identify check against police states basis, whether that's police immigration. so what we're seeing is police being able to identify people in seconds that put so much power in the hands of the state and the police, which i think it's fundamentally wrong. it's not democratically accountable because

there's no legal basis for this. so this is an intense, intrusive, and authoritarian surveillance technology. while advocates, the facial recognition would debate some of christ assertions. one thing is undeniable. the technology currently being used by the u. k. police is dangerously inaccurate. the latest figures show that 96 percent of the met police's so called matches when miss identification's. and this research showing that many facial recognition algorithms are disproportionately mis identified, darker skin tones, and women the causes a numerous and they vary ranging from poor quality cctv images to the fact that the algorithms are often trained so to speak. using faces that are mostly white and male, this technology 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 it doesn't 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. for the more often you are 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. it's never just about you. proponents of facial recognition in the u. k. will argue that issues with accuracy can be fixed, they are wrong, technology can always be improved on. what's a big 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 as a technology has been rolled out without legislation and empowered regulators. this is not technology that has a very good track record of being countable. so i can find out a who's using it under what circumstances, what's, what's 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. it's just being rolled out when people feel that they're being observed all the time. that hasn't really chilling effect. so things like you're right to protest. you're 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 a defended the trials saying they're quote event and that members of the public are informed through posters and leaflets. but at the trial, i was that that wouldn't be the word i'd use. there were 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 used for. when minimal. i stopped a few people to see what they thought of the trial. i saw not the level of invasion of privacy. yeah, but then we live in not while in my opinion, i think it's like 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. the technology is going at 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, that 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 shot record, and we should not be putting so much power into the hands of the state and the police. take a look around you in the world. this 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 and 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 that even in liberal democracies, in times of war and 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. coll expired metrics from another key segment of the population. one that many wouldn't have even considered children. few are aware that schools have been recording the biometrics of children for the past 20 years. it is estimated that since 999, approximately 70 to 80 percent of children in the u. k. have tracked with some sort of biometric device in school picking is a parent campaign for children's 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 school children must ask question if they're being surveilled little bit more than general population simply because they didn't know any better. the concern i have biometrics in schools is that for the way back in 1999 and throughout the whole of that next decade in 2000 is that we have and it'll

population when using biometrics, a tall, not even of phones. and suddenly we had children and 3 and 4, using their fingerprint to get in and out to school systems. the gross of affordable biometric technology means that fingerprints iris scans, facial recognition, and infrared palm scanning have been used to speed up access to contains libraries, registrations, payments, and lockers. a big selling point, of course, has been security by metric enabled access is seen as a foolproof way of keeping school building safer. however, a big concern is how robustly 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 publication a few years ago. friedman with mason request about they check the software. they checked encryption standards, adhering to sort of international dundas hardware. it's secure, nobody should know we've never tech system. no,

we don't know when national sun this is, steve has been gone under the carpet and nobody is aware of what's in schools, what's being sold to schools who are access to it. and whether or not it's been any biometric data breaches for entire generations of british school children. questions of consent around their biometrics have been bypass to a great extent. it was only in 2012 that a law was inactive, putting in place processes for consent to be given or with help. the overall effect of metrics in schools however, is that the sharing and use of very personal data and implications of surveillance . a being normalized, that's millions of british children who've been taught to understand that it's no big deal to head over your body data. in order to get a service or a product. they don't understand how it can be abused necessarily. 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 necessarily the tag because we've got the tech already acceptance. and

if you go into schools and you desensitize a normalized surveillance technology, the smart city is that have already no objection to it. so i think there's a good argument sort of for all whole to be a little bit where we have the which smart and especially when it with smart cities or smart toys with is sensitive valence. it would be one thing if extensive biometric systems were being just used by governmental, state funded organizations like the us it wouldn't make the lack of accountability or inaccuracy 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 form. the reality, however, is that by metrics are increasingly being used by private companies. shopping moves, recruitment agencies, online dna, and ancestry surfaces, and even private security companies. all of them

a taking and using our biometrics and finding out how the technology is being used, what daughter is being stored and with whom it's being shared. not just today, but also in the future involves a lot of protests because these aren't transparent systems. even some of them are seemingly benign, data driven products can pose a threat. so lots of people, for instance, are really interested in finding out about their family history. so they're heading over their dna to companies like ancestry dot com. now unique combination of the world's largest teenage mitree databases. who can show you a more precise picture of your origins. you as a citizen, have fewer rights about your dna with a private company than you do with law enforcement. right? so like, put that in your head for just a moment and followed implications through in some countries your dna could be used to reveal all sort. so for instance, predispositions to health problems that you might have. and in countries where there is a national health insurance and you have to pay to be insured for your health that

could be used against you. and you would never know maybe even how they got the data. cuz this is all being potentially traded by 3rd party brokers because it's not illegal yet because no one's regulated it. you biometrics are a really powerful dodson, and they're being used not only to id you to more reliably track you, but also to judge you and to make assessments about your personality and your behavior. there are companies that offer this exec service take high z, for example, on its website. it says it leverages a i in video to provide comprehensive candidate insights. when a candidate takes the video interview, they're creating thousands of unique points of data. a candidates, verbal and non verbal cues give us insight into their emotional engagement. thinking and problem solving style. according to high, if you, it services are already being used by big employees like union lever, vodafone and duncan don't. patient. this is something that increased many years in

the real world. the share range of things we can do in the ways that we can use data to affect people's lives. so for example, machine learning systems are used to recommend in shopping scenarios, but they're also used to assess people for jail sentences. and so if those algorithms have got problems, whether they be technical inaccuracies or bias within the algorithm, we need to start addressing those kind of issues. ryan kelly is a researcher on computing and information systems at the university of melbourne. he's been involved in an elaborate climb metric experiment to raise awareness about the potential and limitations of biometric analysis. it's called biometric mirror and i gave it a go using nothing but an image of my face. the system produces a detailed report and it's assessment of my age, race, level of attractiveness, and even aspects of my personality,

ranging from happiness and witness to aggressiveness and responsibility. to teach the algorithm to do this. research is asked human volunteers to judge thousands of photos for the same characteristics. everything. yes, really. now it's easy to laugh at the results. shrugged them off is just a bit of fun. but there's more to it than that. so one of the reasons that important to teach people about the limitations of artificial intelligence and these kinds of analyses is because people might assume that because it's done by a computer, it's objective and correct. and what they might not realize is actually an application like biometric mirror draws on a data of faces that have been rated by people and say those ratings contain human biases. and so one example in the dates that biometric mirrors, anybody with a cleared, is classified as aggressive. so of course i am classified as an aggressive person by biometric mer, even though i don't think class, i hope i'm not. so if an application like this is deployed in the real world

immediately that people are classified perhaps unfairly and ways that aren't accurate in my place. they, for example, you can 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 a responsibility. so somebody who is responsible for that task might say, oh, i can use biometric mirror to identify people who high and responsibility without really realizing that it's not an accurate thing to do reverse problems associated with that. regardless of those problems, biometric technologies being developed and used at a rate that far at strips the pace at which regulations have been created. in many senses, it feels as though we're sitting on a ticking time bomb. we don't even have an established field of ethics for technology. there's voluntary codes by companies. these are not legally enforceable . you as a citizen or a consumer cannot use these to protect you in any way to derive no comfort from

that. 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 such a temptation to take all data about you and reduce you to zeros and ones. that is what it's coming and whether or not you want that to happen has to be something that's disgust it. we're willing this technology out and saying that this is going to change the way that we work and live within the next 51020 years to me. and it'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 amended if it's incorrect and whether 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 using technology who owns the technology, i'm asking the question and it sharing it with anybody. and i think generally being prudent keeping digital footprints minimum is a good thing to do also as well. i mean technology is bright, so do you enjoy? it is amazing. the flows of information knowledge out, but just be very aware of that. it's your data and data is very valuable. news. news, news, news, news,

news. hello, thank you for joining in years or weather story for asia pacific. a run of rain for southern sections of japan, also north korea, but let's get rate to where he actually is on either side of the philippines. talk about both of these disturbances. we've got concept, let me press play, you'll see where it goes over the span of the weekend. but here we are on sunday looking to see that landfall for central vietnam over at turn to this in a sec. but we've also got super typhoon shot through looking to make landfall across the taiwan also on sunday, back the concept is going to be a major rain events for central areas of vietnam denying, looking at about maybe upwards of $200.00 millimeters less. so a wind event, we think gusts about 57 kilometers per hour, you know, for new south wales, sidney. this will be the warmest weekend in 7 months at 28 degrees. but i want to

show you where the instability is. we've got cloud and rain for western australia and toward that southeast corner of australia also wind swept drain for tasmania. i think we'll squeeze out one more. nice. stay for sydney at $29.00 and then we've got a southerly buster. so that knocks down your temperatures breezy conditions and we'll see what whether we've got a day of reprieve across that new zealand before the next system slides in on sunday. so enjoy it. while you can see it's in the frank assessments by where it is what it is, again, freedom suppressed. what can, again, freedom of expression is a weapon against human right. in depth analysis of the days global headlines inside story now jazeera the, the ah,

and al jazeera with every ah, all the. ready news this is al jazeera. ah hello mario. why the welcome to the news our life from london coming up in the next 60 minute. 1000000000 businessmen and g, mccarty vows to save lebanon as he forms, and you government off to 13 months of political deadlock is ready.