“Panic-Buying…”

“Panic-Buying…”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/31/2020 – 13:41

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

The panic buying we’re seeing in $TSLA and $APPL today, following the historic runs into the stock splits effective today, firms my view that we are setting up for something sinister in markets.

To be sure we live in strange times, even some bulls are capitulating giving up completely on rationalizing the Fed induced bubble price action. Today Tony Dwyer suspended all efforts to give price targets, in essence acknowledging that traditional valuations metrics no longer apply:

Unlimited upside in a risk free market that keeps ignoring everything.
And hence it should come as no surprise that the market cap expansion machine keeps creating value out of nothing:

Extended buying pure and hence we end up with charts such as this:

This is the circus the Fed has unleashed.

So let’s all acknowledge that sentiment is vastly bullish and people are piling into select stocks with no regard to risk.

I say select stocks because the internal picture keeps showing dreadful weakness underneath, even in the almighty Nasdaq:

All of which brings me to a historic irony.  Let’s recognize that the Fed has produced a liquidity machine that has pushed select indices to all time highs with most gains coming from a few tech stocks. Take those stocks out of the equation and $SPX is still flat on the year and most stocks are down on the year.

Viewed with this lens this multi month rally is not all that different than what we’ve seen in the past.

In fact, the precedence is striking in that the counter rally in the year 2000 peaked on September 1st following a furious rally in August. Sound familiar?

$SPX hit a peak of 1530 on that day as the worst was assumed to be over and optimism had come back roaring following the initial tech crash in March of that year.

But it was after September 1 that the real fun started and $SPX then commenced its long journey down that ended in October 2002 when $SPX bottomed at 798.55:

It is hence notable that $SPX is coming into the end of August and beginning of September approaching historic resistance. Indeed $ES tagged that resistance line in overnight and has sconce rejected as $NDX continues to make new all time highs:

It is the very chart I  discussed in context and detail in The Jaws:

Who knows if history is still any guide in these times. If it is then the panic buying and optimism of these days is laying the groundwork for the tears that are to follow.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2EyeYf9 Tyler Durden

Watch Live: Biden Slams Trump’s Leadership On Coronavirus, ‘Political Violence’

Watch Live: Biden Slams Trump’s Leadership On Coronavirus, ‘Political Violence’

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/31/2020 – 13:27

VP Joe Biden is deliveriong remarks on the violence unfurling in America’s Democrat-led cities

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34QB5Ii Tyler Durden

“We Build The Wall” Founder Brian Kolfage, Bannon’s Co-Defendant, Pleads Not Guilty In Fraud Case

“We Build The Wall” Founder Brian Kolfage, Bannon’s Co-Defendant, Pleads Not Guilty In Fraud Case

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/31/2020 – 13:25

Brian Kolfage, a triple-amputee and veteran known as the founder of “We Build The Wall”, the private group that went viral via a GoFundMe campaign to finance a “privately constructed” border wall, has pleaded guilty in a fraud case that has also ensnared former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.

  • STEVE BANNON CO-DEFENDANT, BRIAN KOLFAGE, PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO DEFRAUDING BORDER WALL DONORS – COURT HEARING
  • BOND OF $500,000 FOR KOLFAGE, $250,000 FOR BADOLATO AND SHEA
  • JUDGE IN ‘WE BUILD THE WALL’ CASE SETS MAY 24, 2021, TRIAL DATE
  • STEVE BANNON ALREADY PLEADED NOT GUILTY IN THE CASE

Bannon pleaded guilty more than a week ago, and has suggested that the charges against him, as well a Kolfage and one other co-defendant named Timothy Shea, are part of a politically motivated harassment campaign. The criminal complaint alleged that Bannon may have earned as much as $1 million – a pittance compared with his already considerable net worth – via his involvement in the fundraiser. Kolfage is charged with using money from the fundraiser to finance his ‘luxe lifestyle’.

 

 

 

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bbuGsc Tyler Durden

Appeals Court Denies Flynn Request To Dismiss Case, Says Judge Can Probe DOJ Reversal

Appeals Court Denies Flynn Request To Dismiss Case, Says Judge Can Probe DOJ Reversal

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/31/2020 – 13:13

Michael Flynn’s request to force a judge to immediately dismiss his case was shot down by a federal appeals court on Monday.

In an 8-2 ruling, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Flynn’s petition to force Judge Emmett Sullivan to accept the Justice Department’s motion to drop charges without holding a hearing, according to The Hill.

Flynn’s request that Sullivan be forced to recuse himself was also struck down, after his legal team argued that the judge acted improperly when he appointed a partisan outside attorney to argue against the DOJ’s decision to drop the case, and that it was inappropriate to ask the full circuit court to revisit an earlier decision by a three-member panel of the DC Circuit to drop the case.

Unless Flynn’s lawyers appeal to the Supreme Court, Sullivan will be able to move forward with a hearing about the DOJ’s unusual reversal in the case, before deciding whether to allow the Trump administration to withdraw its charges against the president’s former close aide.

Flynn had pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election. –The Hill

The DOJ filed a motion to drop the case against Flynn in May, after it was revealed that the FBI engaged in a ‘perjury trap’ against the former Trump National Security Adviser.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gKmel1 Tyler Durden

Rationalization: Do Low Rates Justify High Valuations?

Rationalization: Do Low Rates Justify High Valuations?

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/31/2020 – 13:05

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The “rationalization” that low rates justify high valuations is but one of several arguments used to justify overpaying for value in a late-stage bull market.

As discussed previously, one of the “bullish spins” for the market has been that “earnings are cheap” based on 2- and even 3-year forward estimates. As noted in “Is It Justifiable Bullishness:”

In 2020, investors are again chasing “growth at any price” and rationalizing overpaying for growth. Such makes the mantra of using 24-month estimates to justify paying exceedingly high valuations today, even riskier.”

Such is also why there is the most significant disparity between growth and value on record.

This Time Is Different

The belief this time is different from the past has always been the most dangerous of phrases for investors. However, this is where participants exist today. While it is true the excessive monetary liquidity has certainly changed short-term market dynamics; there is no evidence it has mitigated long-term consequences.

Moreover, investors are also relying on the belief that low interest rates justify overpaying for earnings and sales.

“Valuations don’t matter as much as they did in the past because ‘this time is different’ in that interest rates are so low.”

The basic premise of the interest rate/valuation argument has its roots in the “Fed Model” as promoted by Alan Greenspan during his tenure as Federal Reserve Chairman.

The Fed Model states that when the earnings yield on stocks (earnings divided by price) is higher than the Treasury yield, you invest in stocks and vice-versa. In other words, disregard valuations and buy yield.

There is a critical disconnect that needs to be understood.

Earnings Yield

You receive the income from owning a Treasury bond. However, there is NO tangible return from the earnings yield. 

For example, if I own a Treasury bond with a 1% coupon and a stock with a 2% earnings yield, if the price of both assets doesn’t move for one year – my net return on the bond is 1% while the net return on the stock is 0%.

Which one had the better return from 2000-present?

Yet, analysts keep trotting out this broken model to entice investors to chase an asset class with substantially higher volatility risk and lower returns.

Low Rates Don’t Justify High Valuations

An offshoot of the Fed Model to rationalize overpaying for assets is that low interest rates justify high valuations.

However, is the recent decline in interest rates, driven by massive global Central Bank interventions, really providing valuation support? The premise is that cheaper borrowing costs boost bottom-line earnings. The problem is that over the last decade, low rates have led to a deterioration in economic growth and prosperity.

The chart below takes the interest rate argument from a little different angle. I have capped interest rates from their “low point” of each interest rate cycle to the next “high point” and then compared it to the S&P 500 index. (The vertical dashed lines mark the peaks in the S&P 500 Index)

In the majority of cases, the market tends to peak between the low point interest rates for each cycle and the next high point. In other words, a period of steadily rising interest rates is not conducive to higher equity prices. 

Discounting The Discount

The primary argument is that when inflation or interest rates fall, the present value of future cash flows from equities rises, and subsequently, so should their valuation. While true, assuming all else is equal, a falling discount rate does suggest a higher valuation. However, when inflation declines, future nominal cash flow from equities also falls, this can offset the effect of lower discount rates. Lower discount rates are applied to lower expected cash flows.

In other words, without adjusting for inflation and, in no small degree, economic growth, suggesting low rates justify overpaying for cash flows is a very flawed premise.

“Instead of regarding stocks as a fixed-rate bond with known nominal coupons, one must think of stocks as a floating-rate bond whose coupons will float with nominal earnings growth. In this analogy, the stock market’s P/E is like the price of a floating-rate bond. In most cases, despite moves in interest rates, the price of a floating-rate bond changes little, and likewise the rational P/E for the stock market moves little.” – Cliff Asness

Historically, when interest rates or infla­tion are low, the stock market’s E/P is also low, as shown in the chart above.

But when isolating the times when interest rates were meager, that has occurred twice; in the 1940s and currently. In the 1940s, stock valuations were low, along with interest rates. Therefore, the statement that low interest rates cause high valuations is a .500 batting average, which is the equivalent of a coin-flip.

Analysis

  • Exceptionally high-interest rates, which have occurred twice, coincided with low stock market valuations. This fact does not prove that high-interest rates “cause” low stock valuations. But at least the historical record is consistent with such a statement.

  • Extremely low interest rates, which have occurred twice, have coincided with high stock market valuations only once; today. The historical record (1/2 probability) does not validate the highly-confident mainstream narrative that low interest rates “cause” or extremely high stock market valuations.

  • Extremely high stock valuations have occurred three times. Only once (1/3 probability) did high stock valuations coincide with low interest rates; today.

  • If extremely low interest rates do not cause extremely high stock market valuations, then a rise in rates should not necessarily cause a decline in stocks. That is, the historical record does not support the near-certain mainstream narrative that an increase in rates will torpedo stock prices.

  • To demonstrate the ability of a consensus narrative to overwhelm analysis of historical facts and even current reality, consider that the Fed has hiked short-term interest rates five times since December 2015. Also, long-term rates bottomed in mid-2016 and have moved more than a full percent higher. Yet the S&P 500 index has risen more than 30% since the lows in short-term and long-term rates. 

As noted in “Why This Isn’t 1920,” the highest correlation between stock prices and future returns comes from valuations.

Forward Returns Suffer

There is little support for the statement that low rates support high valuations, as noted by Cliff Asness previously.

So, when pundits say it is a good time for long-term investors to buy stocks because interest rates are low, and then show you something like chart above to prove their point, please watch the tense of what they say, as what they often really mean is that it WAS a good time to buy stocks ten years ago, as investors are now paying a very high P/E for the stock market (perhaps fooled into doing so by low interest rates as I contend), and the story going forward may be painfully different.” – Cliff Asness

The last point is crucially important. The chart below, which compares earnings yield (inverted scale) to forward 5-year real returns. When E/Y has been near current levels, the performance over the next 5-years has been quite dismal.

Conclusion

It is imperative to remember valuations are very predictive of long-term returns from the investment process. However, they are horrible timing indicators. 

Beware the investment advisor, pundit, or superstar investor who is sure that extremely low rates cause incredibly high stock valuations. Or, that a rise in rates from extremely low levels will cause a decline in stock prices. Stocks may fall, and interest rates may rise, but the historical record disagrees that one causes the other.

There is much to debate about the current level of interest rates and future stock market returns. However, what is clear is the 40-year decline in rates did not mitigate two extremely nasty bear markets since 1998, just as falling rates did not mitigate the crash in 1929 and the subsequent depression.

Do low-interest rates justify high valuations?

History suggests they don’t. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2G7GPmA Tyler Durden

St. Louis Police Officer Killed During Standoff As City’s ‘Summer Surge’ In Deadly Violence Worsens

St. Louis Police Officer Killed During Standoff As City’s ‘Summer Surge’ In Deadly Violence Worsens

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/31/2020 – 12:50

In the latest reminder that valiant police officers are still venturing out into America’s worst, most crime-afflicted neighborhoods to try and apprehend dangerous criminals, a  St. Louis police officer who was a “hero” to his family died Sunday after being shot in the head by a gunman Saturday evening. He succumbed to his wounds on Sunday. 

Officer Tamarris L. Bohannon bore several coincidental commonalities with Jacob Blake, the suspect who was shot repeatedly in Kenosha while officers feared he was reaching for a weapon. Both were 29. Both are men of color.

But while Blake is facing an assault charge and a long – but not impossible – road to recovery, Bohannon will never again be able to spend time with his family, including his loving wife and three children.

“He is a hero to many but most importantly to his loving wife and three incredible children,” said St. Louis Police Chief John Hayden.

Bohannon had been with the department for 3.5 years.

“The loss of this great man is felt deeply within the St Louis community and we ask for your prayers and support in the days ahead,” his family wrote.

In a briefing about the incident, Hayden explained that the gunman had ordered a family out of their home at gunpoint and barricaded himself inside for nearly 12 hours, creating a tense standoff. As officers and SWAT team assembled outside, police threw tear gas grenades into the house and tried to communicate with the suspect via a bullhorn.

The exact details weren’t clear, but officer Bohannon and one of his colleagues were both shot while searching for another shooting victim. While Bohannon’s injuries proved fatal, his partner, who was shot in the leg, is expected to survive.”

The 43-year-old suspect connected to the shootings was finally taken into custody at around 0530 Sunday morning.

St Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said on Sunday she was “heartbroken” at the cop’s death.

“I’ve had the privilege of spending some time with his family under these extraordinarily challenging circumstances,” she said.

“They’re wonderful people and immensely proud of the way he selflessly served and protected our community with distinction and honor for more than three years.”

“This is a horrific reminder of the dangers our brave men and women willingly face everyday to keep us safe,” Krewson added. “This is a terrible, senseless tragedy.”

Chief Hayden has said the officers were just “trying to do their job, that’s all they’re trying to do and they’re suffering under gunfire.”

The chief added that there has been a “surge in violence” this summer.

“We’re trying to cope through a very trying summer, and it’s very difficult. It’s very difficult,” he said.

Since June 1, eight St Louis police officers have been shot in the line of duty. We wonder: how would the NFL react if a player wanted to display a tribute to Bohannon on their helmets?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jtcEET Tyler Durden

Elon Musk Surpasses Zuckerberg As The World’s Third Richest Person With A $110BN Net Worth

Elon Musk Surpasses Zuckerberg As The World’s Third Richest Person With A $110BN Net Worth

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/31/2020 – 12:33

While the broader market is finally taking on some water, the two stocks that have come to define the bubble euphoria gripping the market – AAPL and TSLA – continue storming higher. The move is perplexing virtually everyone – except those who are buying probably – because most somewhat serious analysts had expected investors to buy into the stock split frenzy but sell afterward. Instead, the pre-split buying has continued, resulting in such laughable titles from Bloomberg seeking to “goalseek” what is going on.

One person who is laughing (all the way to the bank) is Elon Musk, who thanks to the “bullish” stock split is now the third-richest person in the world.

According to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index, Musk surpassed Facebook’s humanoid co-founder Mark Zuckerberg as shares of Tesla continued their unrelenting rally after undergoing a forward stock split. As of 11:25 a.m., Musk was worth $111.3 billion compared with $110.5 billion for Zuckerberg. The table below shows the absolute net worth of the world’s top 10 billionaires as of Friday’s close. This morning, Musk’s net worth has already rocketed by another $7 billion, putting him in the 3rd spot.

As Bloomberg notes, “Musk has seen a meteoric rise in his wealth, with his net worth growing by $76.1 billion this year as Tesla shares surged more than 475%. Also helpful: an audacious pay package – the largest corporate pay deal ever struck between a chief executive officer and a board of directors – that could yield him more than $50 billion if all goals are met.”

What is remarkable is that it was only a few months ago that Musk joined the Top 10 club, and only last week did the Tesla CEO join Zuckerberg, Bezos and Bill Gates in the ultra exclusive centi-billionaire club as tech stocks surged.

Meanwhile, as the uber-rich get richer, the poor are not only getting poorer, but desperate for some action out of Congress to mitigate their fate as millions have found themselves without a job after the coronavirus shutdowns.

That said, Musk still has a long way to become the world’s richest person: to overtake Bezos, whose worth about $200 billion, TSLA stock would have to double from here, a move which at least some optimistic punters who have been aggressively buying TSLA $800 calls expiring Sept 4 all morning…

… believe may happen as soon as this Friday.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bknI4s Tyler Durden

In New Tests, Facial Recognition Products Are Consistently Thwarted by Masks

westendrf539972

Ongoing tests of facial recognition technology continue to show that the technology is baffled when people wear masks of the sort that have become widespread (and even mandatory) in some places during the current pandemic. Forty-one newly tested algorithms—some of which were designed to compensate for face coverings—show the same dramatically elevated error rates as those examined earlier.

The tests have important implications for privacy at a time when surveillance technology is growing increasingly pervasive—but so is mask wearing. These studies are of interest, too, in an era of political instability and growing concern over law enforcement excesses, when people may have a strong interest in making identification of opponents and protesters difficult for the powers-that-be.

The tested facial algorithms are additions to those scrutinized by the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in a report issued in July. “Now that so many of us are covering our faces to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, how well do face recognition algorithms identify people wearing masks? The answer, according to a preliminary study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is with great difficulty,” NIST summarized its findings at the time. “Even the best of the 89 commercial facial recognition algorithms tested had error rates between 5% and 50% in matching digitally applied face masks with photos of the same person without a mask.”

While an error rate of 5 percent at the low end may not sound like much, that’s under near-ideal conditions. The algorithms were tested in one-to-one settings, of known subjects, like you might find at a passport checkpoint. And most of the systems suffered much higher error rates when dealing with covered faces.

Because of the growing popularity of face masks even before the pandemic, and their booming and often mandated usage since COVID-19 spread worldwide, facial recognition companies have raced to develop algorithms that can identify people despite coverings. NIST plans to test such technology in the future to see if it delivers as promised. But this latest round of algorithms isn’t part of that study.

“These algorithms were submitted to NIST after the pandemic began,” Chad Boutin, a science writer for NIST, told me by email. “However we do not have information on whether or not they were designed with face coverings in mind. The research team plans to analyze the data and issue its next [Face Regnition Vendor Test] report in the next few months, and will continue to report results on new submissions on the face mask webpage.”

But some of the 41 newly examined algorithms are very clearly intended to compensate for face mask usage.

Dahua, a Chinese company, boasts that its facial recognition technology allows for “attributes including gender, age, expression (happy, calm, surprised, sad, and angry), glasses, face masks, and beard & moustache, which makes searching and tracking subjects of interest more efficient.” In the NIST test, the error rate of Dahua’s algorithm went from 0.3 percent with an uncovered face to 7 percent with a face mask.

Likewise, Rank One insists that “accurate identification can be achieved using solely the eye and eyebrow regions of the face.” The company’s error rate went from 7 percent without masks to 35 percent with them in the NIST study.

Vigilant Solutions, which is well known for its vast license plate reader network but makes no claims about compensating for covered faces, went from a 2 percent error rate without masks to 50 percent with them.

Some of the products had error rates approaching 100 percent with covered faces, although these were generally less-accurate algorithms to begin with.

Again, these are facial recognition algorithms tested in one-to-one settings of the sort used to confirm an identity to unlock a phone or at an access control point. “Future study rounds will test one-to-many searches and add other variations designed to broaden the results further,” according to NIST.

Even before that future study, however, we know that one-to-many comparison of strangers on the street or in a crowd to databases of images is much more challenging. It can be thrown off by many factors—including age, sex, and race—even when people’s faces are uncovered.

Such “systems tend to have lower accuracies compared to verification systems, because it is harder for fixed cameras to take consistent, high-quality images of individuals moving freely through public spaces,” noted William Crumpler of the Center for Strategic and International Studies earlier this year.

Getting high-quality images is especially difficult when people are actively trying to avoid identification. And while such avoidance is difficult to pull off at a passport checkpoint or when trying to unlock a device, resisting identification is par for the course at a protest or on a sidewalk. Last year, police in the U.K. stopped pedestrians who covered their faces when they approached facial recognition cameras precisely because that was seen as an effort to thwart identification.

Now, governments are simultaneously ordering the public to mask-up in public places under threat of stiff fines and fretting over the resulting impact on surveillance. “We assess the widespread use of masks for public safety could likely continue to impact the effectiveness of face recognition systems even after federal or state mandates for their use are withdrawn,” a Department of Homeland Security notice warned in May.

Given that the algorithms designed to compensate for face masks necessarily rely on the remaining exposed portions of the face—specifically, the eyes and eyebrows—donning hats and sunglasses may be all that’s necessary to curtail the effectiveness of facial recognition technology.

The technology has raised enough privacy concerns that there has been enormous push back against its deployment. Boston and San Francisco are the largest of the U.S. cities that have banned the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. Early in August, in a decision that could have wide ramifications for the U.K.’s growing surveillance state, a British court ruled against the use of the technology by the police.

The news that facial recognition technology can be defeated by cheap and ubiquitous face masks may well come as good news to Americans in the streets protesting biased and abusive law enforcement, or just in favor of reforming the way police do their jobs. Such news may also be welcomed in a country bitterly divided into hostile political factions. Half of the country is bound to distrust surveillance technology in the hands of whoever wins the November election.

That means large numbers of Americans should be pleased to know that they have a good chance of preserving their privacy with cheap pieces of fabric stretched across their faces.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3baZVnv
via IFTTT

Lessons in Social Justice from the 16th century

It was a damp evening in the early 1560s when Walter Kapell was marched through a silent crowd in the town square.

He had just been convicted of heresy by the Inquisition, and he would only have a few more minutes to live.

Kapell was a wealthy man and beloved by the townspeople of his native Diksmuide in modern day Belgium. He reportedly gave much of his wealth away to feed and clothe the poor, and his many beneficiaries turned up to watch his execution in horror.

This was a period in history when the Catholic Church, having long ruled over European society, was starting to lose its grip on power.

Martin Luther famously wrote his ‘95 Theses’ in 1517, which was one of the first popular works that questioned the Church’s practices. And a revolutionary movement quickly picked up steam.

Countless Europeans began breaking away from the Catholic Church. And by the mid-1500s, dozens of Protestant religious groups had formed all over Europe.

The Church fought back aggressively against this threat to its power, and it quickly enlisted the support of friendly governments.

Philip II of the Holy Roman Empire was a zealous ally to the Church; he decreed that Protestant heretics should be snuffed out and executed, and the Inquisition that he established in the ‘United Provinces’ (which includes modern day Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) was legendary for its brutality.

People the United Provinces were overwhelmingly Catholic. But for the most part the average citizen was easy-going and supported religious freedom for Protestants.

In 1558, for example, when the Inquisition in Rotterdam sentenced several protestants to death, local Catholic citizens rescued them from the stake.

Any execution that did take place was horrifying for Catholics and Protestants alike.

And then, in the 1560s, a few particularly gruesome executions took place.

One of them was Walter Kapell. Again, Kapell was loved by everyone– Catholic and Protestant.

And his death was so painful that a Flemish peasant threw himself onto the very pyre where Kapell was being burned to death, reportedly screaming:

“Ye are bloody murderers! That man has done no wrong but given me bread to eat.”

Another victim, an Anabaptist whose name has been lost to history, was hacked to death with a rusty blade in front of his family.

Thomas Calberg, a weaver from the town of Tournay in modern Belgium, was burned alive because he had some Protestant hymns in his possession.

These executions prompted both Catholics and Protestants in the United Provinces to say ‘enough is enough’.

And in the summer of 1566, the United Provinces exploded into full blown social revolution.

On June 28th, 6,000 people gathered in Tournay (where Thomas Calberg was executed). Within two days their ranks had swelled to 10,000. Within a week, 20,000.

The protests quickly spread across the provinces.

In Antwerp, one of the most commercially important cities of the day, 30,000 protesters gathered, many of them armed.

It didn’t take long for things to become violent.

On August 14th , a crowd of ‘peaceful protestors’ broke into numerous churches across the provinces and destroyed the property inside.

On the 16th and 17th, a mob in Antwerp entered the great cathedral and destroyed everything in sight. They ripped down Catholic monuments and set church libraries ablaze.

In Tournay (again, where Thomas Calberg was executed), EVERY church in the town was razed.

Around the same time, prominent Dutch noblemen from the region saw the political tides shifting, and they began to swear allegiance to the protestors.

The most prominent local politician was William of Orange; he came from a wealthy landowning family in the Netherlands and was born a Protestant.

But then he switched to Catholicism as a young man in order to gain favor with the ruling Holy Roman Empire.

At the outbreak of the revolt, William maintained his loyalty to the Empire and remained a Catholic.

Only after the revolt had carried on for several years did he switch back to Protestantism and claimed that he had been a lifelong Protestant.

(Most people saw right through his self-serving BS.)

Many prominent noblemen supported the sacking of churches; they insisted that most of the protests were peaceful, and that any property destruction was less important than the fact that so many Protestants had been burned alive.

Eventually the violence spread to individuals.

Catholics were routinely beaten and maimed… even though the majority of Catholics in the United Provinces supported the Protestants and their religious freedom.

In March 1568, angry mobs (which included many Catholics), stormed into churches and cut off the ears of priests.

As historian John Motley wrote of the mob, “[Catholics] had ceased to be human in their eyes. . .” Anyone who did not vocally and publicly disavow their identity as a Catholic was in danger.

And even though the mob was only a small percent of the population, it was able to take over local governments.

They almost immediately imposed their own version of the Inquisition, stamping out anyone who practiced or tolerated Catholicism.

Margaret of Parma (the governor of the United Provinces) summed it up when she wrote to Philip II, “Anything and everything is now tolerated in this country, except the Catholic religion.”

The lawlessness and chaos was so pronounced that citizens across the United Provinces—both Catholic and Protestant—wondered whether the new Inquisition was actually worse than the old one.

The economic effects were devastating. Antwerp and Amsterdam emptied out. Businesses shuttered, and many prominent entrepreneurs left altogether and fled to England.

Entire industries left the United Provinces, never to return. Their businesses relocated to other countries, vastly benefitting those foreign economies.

And this chaos in the United Provinces raged on, literally for more than eight decades.

Modern pundits often write that what’s happening in the United States today is reboot of the 1960s. Honestly it seems a lot closer to the 1560s.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/2EKXcF3
via IFTTT

In New Tests, Facial Recognition Products Are Consistently Thwarted by Masks

westendrf539972

Ongoing tests of facial recognition technology continue to show that the technology is baffled when people wear masks of the sort that have become widespread (and even mandatory) in some places during the current pandemic. Forty-one newly tested algorithms—some of which were designed to compensate for face coverings—show the same dramatically elevated error rates as those examined earlier.

The tests have important implications for privacy at a time when surveillance technology is growing increasingly pervasive—but so is mask wearing. These studies are of interest, too, in an era of political instability and growing concern over law enforcement excesses, when people may have a strong interest in making identification of opponents and protesters difficult for the powers-that-be.

The tested facial algorithms are additions to those scrutinized by the U.S. government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in a report issued in July. “Now that so many of us are covering our faces to help reduce the spread of COVID-19, how well do face recognition algorithms identify people wearing masks? The answer, according to a preliminary study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is with great difficulty,” NIST summarized its findings at the time. “Even the best of the 89 commercial facial recognition algorithms tested had error rates between 5% and 50% in matching digitally applied face masks with photos of the same person without a mask.”

While an error rate of 5 percent at the low end may not sound like much, that’s under near-ideal conditions. The algorithms were tested in one-to-one settings, of known subjects, like you might find at a passport checkpoint. And most of the systems suffered much higher error rates when dealing with covered faces.

Because of the growing popularity of face masks even before the pandemic, and their booming and often mandated usage since COVID-19 spread worldwide, facial recognition companies have raced to develop algorithms that can identify people despite coverings. NIST plans to test such technology in the future to see if it delivers as promised. But this latest round of algorithms isn’t part of that study.

“These algorithms were submitted to NIST after the pandemic began,” Chad Boutin, a science writer for NIST, told me by email. “However we do not have information on whether or not they were designed with face coverings in mind. The research team plans to analyze the data and issue its next [Face Regnition Vendor Test] report in the next few months, and will continue to report results on new submissions on the face mask webpage.”

But some of the 41 newly examined algorithms are very clearly intended to compensate for face mask usage.

Dahua, a Chinese company, boasts that its facial recognition technology allows for “attributes including gender, age, expression (happy, calm, surprised, sad, and angry), glasses, face masks, and beard & moustache, which makes searching and tracking subjects of interest more efficient.” In the NIST test, the error rate of Dahua’s algorithm went from 0.3 percent with an uncovered face to 7 percent with a face mask.

Likewise, Rank One insists that “accurate identification can be achieved using solely the eye and eyebrow regions of the face.” The company’s error rate went from 7 percent without masks to 35 percent with them in the NIST study.

Vigilant Solutions, which is well known for its vast license plate reader network but makes no claims about compensating for covered faces, went from a 2 percent error rate without masks to 50 percent with them.

Some of the products had error rates approaching 100 percent with covered faces, although these were generally less-accurate algorithms to begin with.

Again, these are facial recognition algorithms tested in one-to-one settings of the sort used to confirm an identity to unlock a phone or at an access control point. “Future study rounds will test one-to-many searches and add other variations designed to broaden the results further,” according to NIST.

Even before that future study, however, we know that one-to-many comparison of strangers on the street or in a crowd to databases of images is much more challenging. It can be thrown off by many factors—including age, sex, and race—even when people’s faces are uncovered.

Such “systems tend to have lower accuracies compared to verification systems, because it is harder for fixed cameras to take consistent, high-quality images of individuals moving freely through public spaces,” noted William Crumpler of the Center for Strategic and International Studies earlier this year.

Getting high-quality images is especially difficult when people are actively trying to avoid identification. And while such avoidance is difficult to pull off at a passport checkpoint or when trying to unlock a device, resisting identification is par for the course at a protest or on a sidewalk. Last year, police in the U.K. stopped pedestrians who covered their faces when they approached facial recognition cameras precisely because that was seen as an effort to thwart identification.

Now, governments are simultaneously ordering the public to mask-up in public places under threat of stiff fines and fretting over the resulting impact on surveillance. “We assess the widespread use of masks for public safety could likely continue to impact the effectiveness of face recognition systems even after federal or state mandates for their use are withdrawn,” a Department of Homeland Security notice warned in May.

Given that the algorithms designed to compensate for face masks necessarily rely on the remaining exposed portions of the face—specifically, the eyes and eyebrows—donning hats and sunglasses may be all that’s necessary to curtail the effectiveness of facial recognition technology.

The technology has raised enough privacy concerns that there has been enormous push back against its deployment. Boston and San Francisco are the largest of the U.S. cities that have banned the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. Early in August, in a decision that could have wide ramifications for the U.K.’s growing surveillance state, a British court ruled against the use of the technology by the police.

The news that facial recognition technology can be defeated by cheap and ubiquitous face masks may well come as good news to Americans in the streets protesting biased and abusive law enforcement, or just in favor of reforming the way police do their jobs. Such news may also be welcomed in a country bitterly divided into hostile political factions. Half of the country is bound to distrust surveillance technology in the hands of whoever wins the November election.

That means large numbers of Americans should be pleased to know that they have a good chance of preserving their privacy with cheap pieces of fabric stretched across their faces.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3baZVnv
via IFTTT