Christopher Preble Says Killing Soleimani Didn’t Make America Safer

In early January, the United States took out Iran’s top military leader, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, as he passed through Iraq. President Donald Trump’s decision to order the killing of a foreign government official was controversial both at home and abroad.

Is Trump charting a bold new course in the Middle East or following the failed footsteps of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush? A day before Iran responded to the killing with a bombing campaign against two U.S. military bases in the region, Reason‘s Nick Gillespie spoke with Christopher A. Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

In 1990–93, Preble served as an officer in the U.S. Navy on the USS Ticonderoga. He’s the co-author of Fuel to the Fire: How Trump Made America’s Broken Foreign Policy Even Worse (and How We Can Recover) and the author of Peace, War, and Liberty: Understanding U.S. Foreign Policy.

Q: How big a deal is the U.S. killing Iranian Gen. Soleimani?

A: It’s a really big deal. The best equivalent I’ve heard is that it would be as if someone killed both the head of U.S. Central Command and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. One of the key differences between Soleimani and Osama bin Laden, for example, is that bin Laden was a terrorist leader, not a representative of a sovereign state.

Q: Is the difference between a terrorist and a state actor mostly legalistic, in that this could be perceived as an act of war? Or is it more moral, in that we treat generals of states we’re not at open war with differently than we do mere terrorists?

A: There’s a legal aspect of this in terms of U.S. domestic law, which prohibits the assassination of foreign government officials. But I frankly approach this more from a practical perspective. Does this advance American safety and security? Does it make Americans freer and more prosperous? The answer is no.

Q: What are the ways that this makes us less safe? 

A: The Iranians don’t have a comparable level of capability to the U.S., but they do have a willingness and the ability to carry out cyberattacks against networks. That’s a more pressing concern, perhaps, than conventional reprisals here in the U.S.

Q: Is it possible that this was the type of action that makes Iran change its behavior in the Middle East?  

A: That’s certainly what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and what President Trump himself seem to believe. They expect Iran not to retaliate and to be deterred from retaliation by threats. This is consistent with what the Trump administration calls the “maximum pressure campaign,” which also involves sanctions.

The maximum pressure campaign has put real pain on the Iranian people. We have credible evidence of Iranians dying premature deaths from lack of access to medicine, for example. But it has not brought the Iranian government back to the negotiating table to comply with the long list of demands that the Trump administration has made.

Q: It seems like, in terms of Iraq, things are going in the wrong direction. The Iraqi government now wants the American military to get the hell out.

A: As recently as December there was rising Iraqi anger and animosity at foreign influence from both the United States and Iran. What we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks is a lot of that anger and resentment redirected to the United States.

Now, there was a lot of resentment and anger toward us already, because we’re a foreign presence in Iraqi territory. But I think that for the time being, the balance of power inside Iraq now tips toward Iran because of that strike.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a podcast version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xtsDjJ
via IFTTT

Christopher Preble Says Killing Soleimani Didn’t Make America Safer

In early January, the United States took out Iran’s top military leader, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, as he passed through Iraq. President Donald Trump’s decision to order the killing of a foreign government official was controversial both at home and abroad.

Is Trump charting a bold new course in the Middle East or following the failed footsteps of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush? A day before Iran responded to the killing with a bombing campaign against two U.S. military bases in the region, Reason‘s Nick Gillespie spoke with Christopher A. Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

In 1990–93, Preble served as an officer in the U.S. Navy on the USS Ticonderoga. He’s the co-author of Fuel to the Fire: How Trump Made America’s Broken Foreign Policy Even Worse (and How We Can Recover) and the author of Peace, War, and Liberty: Understanding U.S. Foreign Policy.

Q: How big a deal is the U.S. killing Iranian Gen. Soleimani?

A: It’s a really big deal. The best equivalent I’ve heard is that it would be as if someone killed both the head of U.S. Central Command and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. One of the key differences between Soleimani and Osama bin Laden, for example, is that bin Laden was a terrorist leader, not a representative of a sovereign state.

Q: Is the difference between a terrorist and a state actor mostly legalistic, in that this could be perceived as an act of war? Or is it more moral, in that we treat generals of states we’re not at open war with differently than we do mere terrorists?

A: There’s a legal aspect of this in terms of U.S. domestic law, which prohibits the assassination of foreign government officials. But I frankly approach this more from a practical perspective. Does this advance American safety and security? Does it make Americans freer and more prosperous? The answer is no.

Q: What are the ways that this makes us less safe? 

A: The Iranians don’t have a comparable level of capability to the U.S., but they do have a willingness and the ability to carry out cyberattacks against networks. That’s a more pressing concern, perhaps, than conventional reprisals here in the U.S.

Q: Is it possible that this was the type of action that makes Iran change its behavior in the Middle East?  

A: That’s certainly what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and what President Trump himself seem to believe. They expect Iran not to retaliate and to be deterred from retaliation by threats. This is consistent with what the Trump administration calls the “maximum pressure campaign,” which also involves sanctions.

The maximum pressure campaign has put real pain on the Iranian people. We have credible evidence of Iranians dying premature deaths from lack of access to medicine, for example. But it has not brought the Iranian government back to the negotiating table to comply with the long list of demands that the Trump administration has made.

Q: It seems like, in terms of Iraq, things are going in the wrong direction. The Iraqi government now wants the American military to get the hell out.

A: As recently as December there was rising Iraqi anger and animosity at foreign influence from both the United States and Iran. What we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks is a lot of that anger and resentment redirected to the United States.

Now, there was a lot of resentment and anger toward us already, because we’re a foreign presence in Iraqi territory. But I think that for the time being, the balance of power inside Iraq now tips toward Iran because of that strike.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a podcast version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xtsDjJ
via IFTTT

Coronavirus Daily Death Rates by Country

Every day in the developed world, about 20 to 30 people out of every million die. (The typical yearly death rate is about 7.5 to 10.5 per thousand, depending on how many younger people there are compared to the elderly; 7,500 to 10,500 per million, divided by 365, equals 20 to 30 per million per day.)

Judging by the WorldoMeters data from the last three days, here is the mortality owing to coronavirus, which pretty much adds to that daily death rate (averaging deaths over the last 3 days):

  • Italy and Spain, with 14 to 17 deaths per day per million.
  • France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, with deaths in the 4 to 5.5 per million range.
  • The UK at a little under 3 per million.
  • The US, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, and Portugal, at a little under 1 per million (Germany, 0.9) to a little under 2 per million (Denmark, 1.85); the US is at 1.2, though the daily numbers in the US have risen sharply in the last two days. (Keep in mind, of course, that some of these comparisons may be less significant if countries have different protocols for listing cause of death.)
  • South Korea, China, and Canada are very low, below 0.25 per million (though there may be reason to be even more skeptical about Chinese data than about data generally).
  • Japan and Taiwan have been barely hit at all; likewise for most of the rest of the world outside some Western European countries that I haven’t listed. (Russia is ostensibly in this category, though no Russian ever trusts numbers from Russia.)

Of course, the numbers can be much higher in particular regions. News accounts report that 84 people died per day in New York City Thursday and Friday. Over a population of 8.6 million, that’s about 10 deaths per day per million, not far off the national Italy and Spain numbers.

Likewise, most coronavirus deaths in Italy are still in Lombardy: 542 in one day, apparently Friday, out of a population of 10 million, for a daily death rate of 54 per million. That means that in Lombardy the daily death rate is basically triple the usual number. (Of course, especially since the dying are mostly the elderly or chronically ill, a much higher than usual death rate now will probably mean a considerably lower than usual death rate after this epidemic passes, because there will be fewer elderly, more-likely-to-die people left, assuming those who survive the illness won’t be permanently weakened by it. But in the meantime, it’s still people dying sooner than they otherwise would.)

The question, of course, is where are we going? (And, while we’re at it, what’s with this handbasket?) Will the daily surplus death rate substantially increase? Will it substantially decrease? How quickly? That we do not know.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2UJoNuD
via IFTTT

Coronavirus Daily Death Rates by Country

Every day in the developed world, about 20 to 30 people out of every million die. (The typical yearly death rate is about 7.5 to 10.5 per thousand, depending on how many younger people there are compared to the elderly; 7,500 to 10,500 per million, divided by 365, equals 20 to 30 per million per day.)

Judging by the WorldoMeters data from the last three days, here is the mortality owing to coronavirus, which pretty much adds to that daily death rate (averaging deaths over the last 3 days):

  • Italy and Spain, with 14 to 17 deaths per day per million.
  • France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, with deaths in the 4 to 6 per million range.
  • The UK at a little under 3 per million.
  • The US, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, and Portugal, at a little under 1 per million (Germany, 0.9) to a little under 2 per million (Denmark, 1.85); the US is at 1.2, though the daily numbers in the US have risen sharply in the last two days.
  • South Korea, China, and Canada are very low, below 0.25 per million (though there may be reason to be even more skeptical about Chinese data than about data generally).
  • Japan and Taiwan have been barely hit at all; likewise for most of the rest of the world outside some Western European countries that I haven’t listed. (Russia is ostensibly in this category, though no Russian ever trusts numbers from Russia.)

Of course, the numbers can be much higher in particular regions. News accounts report that 84 people died per day in New York City Thursday and Friday. Over a population of 8.6 million, that’s about 10 deaths per day per million, not far off the national Italy and Spain numbers.

Likewise, most coronavirus deaths in Italy are still in Lombardy: 542 in one day, apparently Friday, out of a population of 10 million, for a daily death rate of 54 per million. That means that in Lombardy the daily death rate is basically triple the usual number. (Of course, especially since the dying are mostly the elderly or chronically ill, a much higher than usual death rate now will probably mean a considerably lower than usual death rate after this epidemic passes, because there will be fewer elderly, more-likely-to-die people left, assuming those who survive the illness won’t be permanently weakened by it. But in the meantime, it’s still people dying sooner than they otherwise would.)

The question, of course, is where are we going? (And, while we’re at it, what’s with this handbasket?) Will the daily surplus death rate substantially increase? Will it substantially decrease? How quickly? That we do not know.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2UJoNuD
via IFTTT

The Propaganda Of Terror And Fear: A Lesson From Recent History

The Propaganda Of Terror And Fear: A Lesson From Recent History

Authored by Dr Piers Robinson, Co-Director Organisation for Propaganda Studies,  via Off-Guardian.org,

The ongoing and unfolding reactions to the Coronavirus look set to have wide-ranging and long-lasting effect on politics, society and economics. The drive to close down all activities is extraordinary as are the measures being promoted to isolate people from each other.

The deep-rooted fear of contagious disease, hardwired into the collective consciousness by historical events such as the ‘Black/Bubonic Plague’ and maintained through popular culture (e.g. the Hollywood movies Outbreak and Contagion), means that people are without question highly susceptible to accepting extreme emergency measures whether or not such measures are rational or justified. The New York Times called for America to be put on a war footing in order to deal with Corona whilst former Army General Stanley McChrystal has been invoking his 9/11 experience in order to prescribe lessons for today’s leaders.

At the same time, political actors are fully aware that these conditions of fear and panic provide a critical opportunity that can be exploited in order to pursue political, economic and societal objectives. It is very likely, however, that the dangers posed by the potential exploitation of Corona for broader political, economic and societal objectives latter far outweigh the immediate threat to life and health from the virus. A lesson from recent history is instructive here.

9/11 AND THE GLOBAL ‘WAR ON TERROR’

The events of September 11 2001 represent a key moment in contemporary history. The destruction of three skyscrapers in New York after the impact of two airliners and an attack on the Pentagon, killing around 3000 civilians, shocked both American and global publics. The horror of seeing aircraft being flown into buildings, followed by the total destruction of three high rise buildings within a matter of seconds, and the spectre of a shadowy band of Islamic fundamentalists (Al Qaeda) having pulled off such devastating attacks, gripped the imagination of many in the Western world.

It was in this climate of paranoia and fear that extraordinary policies were implemented. The USA Patriot Act led to significant civil liberty restrictions whilst the mass surveillance of the digital environment became normalized.

In the United States torture was authorized in the name of preventing terrorism whilst the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba became a site in which accused individuals have been held without any adequate legal protection or due process.

Remarkably, the individual accused of leading the alleged 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who ‘confessed’ to CIA interrogators after being ‘waterboarded’ 183 times, has recently received his trial date, set for January 11 2021 and 20 years after 9/11. Civil liberty restrictions, mass surveillance and torture were only a sub-strand of the major war-fighting-policy that was enabled by 9/11.

Presented at the time as America’s ‘New Pearl Harbour’, 9/11 provided the conditions for a series of major regime-change wars which persist until today.

Critically, these wars have not been primarily about combatting ‘Islamic fundamentalist terrorism’/Al Qaeda, but rather attacking ‘enemy’ states. Indeed, the evidence that the 9/11 event and the alleged threat of ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ was then exploited in order to pursue a geo-politically motivated set of regime-change wars which had little connection to the purported Al Qaeda threat is well established.

Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Wesley Clark, famously went public in 2006/7 stating that immediately after 9/11 he had been informed that the US was intending to attack seven countries within five years including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Clark stated:

He [the Joint Staff officer] picked up a piece of paper, he said I just got this down from upstairs, from the Secretary of Defence’s office today, and he said this is a memo that describes how we are gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.

Clark’s claims have recently been corroborated by retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (chief of staff to Colin Powell and Iraq War planner) who stated that he had actually seen the same plans Clark was referring to many months prior to 9/11:

My first briefing in the Pentagon from an Air Force three-star general in February of 2001 I almost fell of my chair because their briefing included on the one hand the Air Force’s ability to take out 80 to 90% of the targets in North Korea in the first few hours of an aerial strike on that country to hey when we do Iraq we’re gonna do Syria and Lebanon and we’re going to do Iran and maybe Egypt … but this was more than that [just contingency planning] Wes Clark is right they had these plans they were going to go right through all these countries that they felt threatened Israel all through those countries that they felt threatened 25-30% of the world’s oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Documentary evidence for these claims has come by way of the UK Chilcot Inquiry into the 2003 Iraq War. For example, a report quoted a British embassy cable, dated 15 September 2001, explained that ‘[t]he “regime-change hawks” in Washington are arguing that a coalition put together for one purpose [against international terrorism] could be used to clear up other problems in the region.’ Another document released by Chilcot shows British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush discussing phases one and two of the ‘war on terror’ and when to hit particular countries. Blair writes:

If toppling Saddam is a prime objective, it is far easier to do it with Syria and Iran in favour or acquiescing rather than hitting all three at once.

The regime-change wars that have flowed directly and indirectly from 9/11 continue to this day. War and conflict continues in Afghanistan and Iraq whilst the nine-year-long war in Syria has borne witness to extensive and illegal policies pursued by Western governments including the funding and arming of extremist groups coupled with support for groups actually aligned with Al Qaeda. Iran continues to be subjected to US hybrid warfare tactics including sanctions and covert operations whilst the threat of military action is very clear and present.

The human cost of these wars, built upon the ruthless exploitation of public fear of terrorism in order to pursue multiple ‘regime-change’ wars, has been huge. According to the Brown University ‘Costs of War Project’, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have killed a combined 480,000 to 507,000 civilians, coalition military members, and foreign fighters, with an untold number having been maimed and disfigured. IPPNW estimated that the first ten years of the ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan killed 1.3 million people.

Since 2011, in Syria alone, over 400,000 people have died as a result of war. The numbers of people displaced as a result of these conflicts are also extremely high; wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria have wrought a combined 9.39 million refugees, 10.78 million internally displaced peoples, and 830,000 asylum seekers. In addition, there are persisting and very serious concerns with respect to the possible involvement of state actors with the event of 9/11.

Recent and critical developments regarding the events of 9/11 include the publication this week of the University of Alaska study of the WTC7 Collapse which confirms that the official US government investigation was wrong if not plain fraudulent. Other important developments include publication last year of the 9/11 Consensus Panel evidence and increasing scrutiny of the official narrative from mainstream academics.

Overall, the 9/11 global ‘war on terror’ is increasingly coming to be understood particularly across the world as, first and foremost, a remarkable propaganda campaign designed to enable violent conflict in the international system and with its effects and objectives being far wider and deeper than had been suggested by official narratives regarding the need to combat Al Qaeda.

CORONA VIRUS: A NEW 9/11?

The lesson of 9/11 is that major events can become what scholar Peter Dale Scott describes as deep events which are exploited by political actors in order to precipitate and manage major political, economic and social shifts. 9/11 became, in effect, the deep event that enabled 20 years of unfettered Western warfare abroad and severe civil liberty restrictions and extensive surveillance at home.

At the time of 9/11 many people in the West were terrified of terrorism. Public opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan (the first regime war to flow within months of 9/11) was almost impossible without being accused of being reckless in the ‘fight against terrorism’ or of being an ‘Al Qaeda’ sympathizer. Muslims throughout the West were widely despised. US President George Bush declared that ‘you are either with us or against us’. The parallels with what is happening today are obvious.

Is the Coronavirus a new 9/11, a new deep event? We cannot yet be sure, as of this writing. Perhaps the current strategy of suspending basic liberties will work to effectively eliminate all threats posed by the virus. Governments will then restore the civil liberties currently being suspended and all will fairly quickly return to the way things were before. Perhaps the economy will confidently weather the fallout from the ‘lockdowns’ and everything will return to business as usual.

And perhaps a sober ‘lessons learned’ review will lead to public health officials developing reasonable and balanced plans, such as developing sufficient capacity for rapid testing and tracing, which can be deployed the next time a sufficiently dangerous virus starts to spread thus avoiding terrifying publics and implementing draconian measures that inflict significant damage to the social and economic fabric of society.

Or perhaps not. It may be that, as British journalist Peter Hitchens has been warning, the loss of liberty and basic rights will continue indefinitely as governments greedily hold on to their increased powers of control over their citizenry.

Similarly, Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi has warned about the risks in Italy of state authorities, hostile to open societies and the political left, exploiting Corona in order to increase their control.

An obvious concern here is whether there will be a permanent impact on mass gatherings and protests. James Corbett warns of a permanent state of ‘medical martial law’ and there is certainly the very real possibility of the normalization of government-imposed quarantine and other freedom of movement restrictions.

Margaret Kimberley of the US-based Black Agenda Report warns that Corona may be used as a way of covering up both economic crisis and collapse. She notes that the Federal Reserve ‘recently threw Wall Street a $1.5 trillion lifeline which only kicked the can down the road. The can has been kicked ever since the Great Recession of 2008’. The likely destruction of small businesses might allow for ever greater corporate choke-hold on the economy with more people forced into the corporate workforce.

There is certainly the danger that COVID-19 will be exploited in order to distract from severe economic problems whilst also enabling the pursuit of new economic strategies which worsen rather than mitigate the social inequalities that already tarnish Western countries.

And, of course those actors behind the regime-change wars that flowed from 9/11 may use the Coronavirus to increase pressure on the countries they have been targeting for the last 20 years and those they wish to target in the future.

Already we have seen the regime-change advocate John Bolton blaming China for the Corona Virus whilst the New York Times reported that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien were ‘arguing that tough action while Iran’s leaders were battling the corona virus ravaging the country could finally push then into direct negotiations’.

ABC news report that, despite the Coronavirus, US and UAE troops have held a major military exercise ‘that saw forces seize a sprawling model Mideast city’. It is also worth nothing here the recent US assassination of Iranian General Solemeni and the on-going proxy battles between US forces and Iranian-backed groups in Iraq. The possibility of Corona being exploited in order to further the regime change wars we have seen over the last 20 years is extremely likely and it would be naïve in the extreme to think otherwise.

Whatever the COVID-19 event may or may not be, the fundamental lesson of the last 20 years is that governments can and do exploit, even manipulate, events in order to pursue political, social, military and economic objectives. Fearful populations are frequently irrational ones, vulnerable and malleable. Now is not the time for deference to authority and reluctance to speak out.

It is time for publics to get informed, think calmly and rationally, and to robustly scrutinize and challenge what their governments are doing. The dangers of failing to do this likely far surpass the immediate threat posed by the Coronavirus.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 03/28/2020 – 23:45

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

China Suffers Economic Double-Whammy As Current Global Demand Collapse Follows Earlier Supply Crash

China Suffers Economic Double-Whammy As Current Global Demand Collapse Follows Earlier Supply Crash

As the first quarter is about to close, many Chinese factories are still operating below full capacity, have been gradually ramping up production over the last several weeks as government data suggests the country’s pandemic curve has flattened.

But as Bloomberg notes, there is a serious problem developing, one where the virus crisis is locking down the Western Hemisphere, has resulted in firms from Europe and the US to cancel their Chinese orders en masse, triggering the second shockwave that is starting to decimate China’s industrial base. 

A manager from Shandong Pangu Industrial Co. told Bloomberg that 60% of their orders go to Europe. In recent weeks, manager Grace Gao warned that European clients are requesting orders to be delayed or canceled because of the virus crisis unfolding across the continent.

“It’s a complete, dramatic turnaround,” Gao said, estimating that sales in April to May could plunge by 40% over the prior year. “Last month, it was our customers who chased after us checking if we could still deliver goods as planned. Now it’s become us chasing after them asking if we should still deliver products as they ordered.”

A twin shock has emerged, one where China shuttering most of its industrial base from mid-January through early March, generated a supply shock. Now, as those Chinese firms add capacity, expecting to be met with a surge in demand from Western companies, that is not the case and is resulting in a demand shock. 

“It is definitely the second shockwave for the Chinese economy,” said Xing Zhaopeng, an economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group. The pandemic across the world “will affect China manufacturing through two channels: disrupted supply chains and declining external demand.”

With orders canceled, supply chains disrupted, and payments delayed – the road to recovery in China is going to be a bumpy one at best. Overly optimistic analysts who have been touting a V-shape recovery in China, thus the world, in the first half of the year, will likely be wrong, and as we’ve explained several times, the best case is a U-shape or even perhaps an L-shape.

“Manufacturers are seeing many cases where overseas clients regretted their orders or where goods can’t be delivered due to customs closures in other countries,” said Dong Liu, vice president of Fujian Strait Textile Technology Co. in southeastern China. Liu’s factory was on the cusp of resuming full capacity this month until a demand shock severely dented export orders. 

Nomura International HK Ltd warned earlier this week that China could be on the verge of “plummeting export growth in the coming months.”

We noted on Friday morning that Chinese industrial profits crashed the most on record in January-February, due mostly because of the Lunar new year holiday, coupled with the virus outbreak and strict social distancing measures implemented by the government. This means many Chinese firms are struggling to survive, running out of cash, and on the brink of bankruptcy as demand from abroad has collapsed.

In Keqiao, Shaoxing, a district known for textile manufacturing, many firms are in rough shape after several months of shuttering operations. Have now been greeted with a collapse in demand, thwarting any hope that full capacity can arrive in the coming weeks. 

The twin shocks, first being a supply shock, originating from shutdowns in China, then a demand shock, now coming from the Western world, is the evolution of the global economic crash that is unfolding right in front of us. The world is headed for a depression, if not already in one, as central banks are frantically deploying MMT and unleashing helicopter money to save the world


Tyler Durden

Sat, 03/28/2020 – 23:20

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

Is The COVID-19 Outbreak A Trojan Horse To Increase Smartphone Surveillance?

Is The COVID-19 Outbreak A Trojan Horse To Increase Smartphone Surveillance?

Authored by Aaron Kesel via ActivistPost.com,

The coronavirus outbreak is proving to be the Trojan horse that justifies increased digital surveillance via our smartphones.

All over the world, starting with China – the suspected origin of the COVID-19 outbreak – governments are increasing surveillance of citizens using their smartphones. The trend is taking off like wildfire; in China citizens now require a smartphone application’s permission to travel around the country and internationally.

The application is AliPay by Ant Financial, the finance affiliate controlled by Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. co-founder Jack Ma, and Tencent Holdings Ltd.’s WeChat. Citizens now require a green health code to travel, Yahoo News reported.

China isn’t the only country looking towards smartphones to monitor their citizens; Israel and Poland have also implemented their own spying to monitor those suspected or confirmed to be infected with the COVID-19 virus. Israel has gone the more extreme route, and has now given itself authority to surveil any citizen without a court warrant. Poland on the other hand is requiring those diagnosed with COVID-19 ordered to self-isolate to send authorities a selfie using an app. Which, if Poles don’t respond back in 20 minutes with a smiling face, they risk a visit from police, Dailymail reported.

Singapore has asked citizens to download an app which uses Bluetooth to track whether they’ve been near anyone diagnosed with the virus; and Taiwan, although not using a smartphone, has introduced “electronic fences” which alert police if suspected patients leave their homes.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S. as reported by the Washington Post, smartphones are being used by a variety of companies to “anonymously” collect user data and track if social distancing orders are being adhered to. Beyond that, the mobile phone industry is discussing how to monitor the spread of COVID-19. If that’s not enough, as this author reported for The Mind Unleashed, the government wants to work with big social tech giants like Google, Facebook, and others, to track the spread of COVID-19.

new live index shows the increase of the police state by Top10VPN, a Digital Rights group. Top10VPN lists a total of 15 countries which have already started measures to track the phones of coronavirus patients, ranging from anonymized aggregated data to monitor the movement of people more generally, to the tracking of individual suspected patients and their contacts, known as “contact tracing.”

That’s not the only live index, a company called Unacast that collects and analyzes phone GPS location data also launched one. Except this is a “Social Distancing Scoreboard” that grades, county by county, monitoring who is following social distancing rules.

As Activist Post previously wrote while discussing the increase of a police surveillance state, these measures being put into place now will likely remain long after the pandemic has stopped and the virus has run its course. That’s the everlasting effect that COVID-19 will have on our society.  The coronavirus is now classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization, and it may very well be a legitimate health concern for all of us around the world. But it’s the government’s response that should worry us all more in the long run.

At the time of this report the COVID-19 virus has infected 640,589, killed 29,848, while 137,270 have recovered according to the Johns Hopkins map.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 03/28/2020 – 22:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QTJ6Er Tyler Durden

German State Finance Minister Found Dead

German State Finance Minister Found Dead

The body of Thomas Schäfer – finance minister of the German state of Hesse, was found lying across high-speed train tracks in the town of Hochheim, located between Frankfurt and Mainz, according to DW, citing local police.

Schäfer’s remains were initially unable to be identified due to the extent of the injuries after witnesses reported the body.

According to media in the state of Hesse, the 54-year-old regularly appeared in public in recent days, for example, to inform the public about financial assistance during the coronavirus crisis. Schäfer had been finance minister of Hesse for almost 10 years

The state premier of Hesse, Volker Bouffier, said in a statement Saturday that the state’s leadership has received the news with “sadness and disbelief.” –DW

“We are all shocked and can hardly believe,” he died “so suddenly and unexpectedly” said Bouffier, adding “Our sincere condolences go to his closest relatives.” 

Schäfer isn’t the only high-profile German to meet his end on train tracks.

In 2009, 74-year-old billionaire Adolf Merckle committed suicide after pushing his business empire to the edge of ruin with a speculative bet on Volkswagen stock that went wrong. He was found dead on railroad tracks near his villa in the southern German hamlet of Blaubeuren.

Merckle lost hundreds of millions of euros after he was “caught in a brief but ferocious speculative riptide linked to a campaign by Porsche, the sports car manufacturer, to seize control of Volkswagen,” reported the New York Times at the time. As a result, he was facing a massive liquidation of his empire to cover the bad bet.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 03/28/2020 – 22:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Jlfr2T Tyler Durden