Month: February 2020

Facial recognition company Clearview AI, which works with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, has stated that the firm’s entire client list has been stolen, including how many users each client has, and how many searches they have completed using the service.

The Daily Beast reports that facial recognition firm Clearview AI has revealed that an intruder “gained unauthorized access” to its customer list, the number of user accounts the customer had set up, and the number of searches that customers have conducted using the service. Hoan Ton-That, the founder and CEO of Clearview AI, made headlines recently after stating that he has a First Amendment right to scrape through billions of photos online to add to his company’s database of three billion pictures.

Clearview AI has developed a system that allows users to upload a photo of a person to the app and see public photos of that person, along with links to where those photos appeared. The system scrapes information from Facebook, YouTube, and millions of other websites.

Clearview AI’s facial surveillance systems have been licensed to over 600 law enforcement agencies from the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security and regular local police departments. The system operates with almost no oversight, is reportedly exempt from biometric data laws, and has been marketed widely to law enforcement agencies.

Clearview AI has revealed to its customers via a notification that the company’s servers were not breached during the “unauthorized access” and there was “no compromise of Clearview’s systems or network.” The firm claims to have fixed the vulnerability and claims that the intruder did not obtain any law-enforcement agencies’ actual search histories.

Tor Ekeland, an attorney for Clearview AI stated: “Security is Clearview’s top priority. Unfortunately, data breaches are part of life in the 21st century. Our servers were never accessed. We patched the flaw, and continue to work to strengthen our security.”

David Forscey, the managing director of the no-profit Aspen Cybersecurity Group, commented on the breach stating: “If you’re a law-enforcement agency, it’s a big deal, because you depend on Clearview as a service provider to have good security, and it seems like they don’t.”

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com

Veteran ABC News correspondent David Wright was suspended this week following the release of a Project Veritas video in which he, among other things, admits the establishment media refuses to give President Donald Trump any credit.

Of course, that fact is well known by folks outside of the establishment media echo chamber.

Despite Trump’s many profound successes, tuning in to network television news can be arduous for conservatives, as the overall coverage is generally hostile toward Trump.

So, when we see a man in Wright’s position sharing his unbridled opinion about his own employer’s slanted coverage, it is a rare win against a media apparatus that too often falsely declares itself to be impartial.

Wright, who describes himself as a “socialist” on the widely circulated Project Veritas video, confesses ABC’s refusal to give Trump, or as Wright describes him, “the f—ing president,” his due.

TRENDING: Bernie Turns on Dem Audience After Getting Booed Over His Pro-Cuba Comments

The Emmy Award-winning reporter, who has been been with ABC since 2000, according to Fox News, says on the secretly recorded video that he feels ABC is dropping the ball by not being tougher on Trump.

He also concedes that the establishment media glosses over Trump’s many achievements.

“We don’t hold [Trump] to account. We also don’t give him credit for what things he does do,” Wright says in the video.

Bingo! A lot of adjectives come to mind when describing Wright for his unwitting confession, but disingenuous is not among them. Wright’s acknowledgment of the concerted effort by ABC News to suppress positive news about Trump is a breath of fresh air.

We now have indisputable video evidence of a deeply entrenched, far-left member of the establishment media admitting there is a clear bias against the president during a conversation he thought was among friends at a hotel bar in New Hampshire.

We should be thankful for that. Wright can no longer hide behind the veil of being a journalist seeking the truth. He has outed not only himself, but also his entire network, for being obstructionists of the truth and manipulators of information.

In the video, Wright does not stop at admitting his and other networks repress the truth about President Trump.

He also strongly criticizes the establishment media’s entire business model.

RELATED: If Gun Murders Are ‘Epidemic,’ Why Does NYT Call 10,000 Late-Term Abortions ‘Exceedingly Rare’?

He suggests that ABC has become a “profit center” for its parent company, Disney, and questions the integrity of the network’s editorial direction.

“You can’t watch ‘Good Morning America’ without there being Disney princess or a Marvel Avenger appearing,” Wright says. “It’s all self-promotion.”

“We’re all guilty of the same thing. I think that all these big news organizations,” Wright adds, “I’m speaking about broadcast television, that’s all I’m speaking about. ABC, CBS, NBC.”

“And we recognize that we are dinosaurs and we’re in danger of dying.”

At one point in the video, Wright is asked if he supports “democratic socialism,” which has been popularized by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The award-winning journalist states he considers himself an outright socialist.

“Oh yeah. More than that I would consider myself a socialist,” he says.

ABC News reacted quickly to the undercover video, and announced Wednesday that Wright had been suspended and will be pulled from the network’s political coverage upon his return to “avoid any possible appearance of bias.”

“Any action that damages our reputation for fairness and impartiality or gives the appearance of compromising it harms ABC News and the individuals involved,” ABC said in a statement.

The statement is too little, too late for ABC.

If reporter Martha Raddatz fighting back tears during the network’s 2016 election night meltdown failed to give away the network’s clear anti-Trump bias, David Wright’s comments sure have.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

“If you prick us, do we not bleed?” — William Shakespeare, Act III, Scene I, “The Merchant of Venice.”

The answer to the question, the plaintive plea of Shylock for the recognition of his shared humanity, is, of course, “yes.” It’s a universal human characteristic. Even still in the womb, a few weeks old, our hearts are beating rhythmically and blood courses throughout our tiny, still-developing bodies. Prick us then, and we will bleed.

But what if the question is phrased, “If you prick us, do we not feel pain?”

Again, for those of us already born, barring some pathological neural syndrome, the answer is certainly “yes.” But what about those still-developing humans in the womb? For years the consensus was “no,” not until well after birth. As science and medical observations advanced, the answer turned to “yes” but not until late in gestation (after 24 weeks) and only with development of the cortex (the outermost, thinking layer of the brain).

Science continued to advance, especially in our knowledge of how and when our nerves and other tissues form as we grow and develop in our mother’s wombs. But sadly, many turned a blind eye to the science, preferring a blinkered interpretation that fit their desired narrative on the status of the fetus in the womb.

TRENDING: CNN and MSNBC Air Bloomberg Ad with 9/11 Lie, Don’t Bother Calling It Fake News

The title of a new academic paper says it all: “Reconsidering fetal pain,” by two well-credentialed medical professionals, Stuart Derbyshire and John C. Bockmann.

The article is an honest, objective review of the scientific literature as it relates to the question of whether and when a child still in the womb can experience pain. Looking at the scientific evidence again with unbiased eyes, the authors’ answer was “yes,” perhaps as early as 12 weeks, and certainly after 18 weeks.

Derbyshire and Bockmann also reviewed the evidence for experiencing pain as it relates to any need for the cortex, or any psychological processes to “interpret” the pain signal. Their objective, balanced reading of the evidence pointed to pain experience without the need for the cortex (similar to the undisputed pain experienced by animals), mediated by other neural structures.

The literature on the science of fetal pain has indeed become extensive. But it is not just science, but also reason that brings this new recognition of the reality of fetal pain.

In an accompanying blog post on the Journal of Medical Ethics website, the authors explain further what led them to reconsider this topic. They had discussed the issue since 2016 and recent scientific findings opened the door to the jointly authored paper.

This openness to reconsider the evidence objectively and publish their reasoned conclusions is perhaps more surprising because the authors come from different viewpoints on abortion. They write:

“We have divergent views on abortion with one of us seeing abortion as an ethical necessity for women to be autonomous and one of us seeing abortion as ethically incompatible with good medical practice.

“We both agree, however, that different views regarding abortion should not influence open and frank discussion about the possibility of fetal pain. Scientific findings pertinent to the question of fetal pain, and philosophical discussion of the nature of pain, should be assessed independently of any views about the rights and wrongs of abortion.”

“The quality of mercy is not strained. / It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven / Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: / It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.” — William Shakespeare, Act IV, Scene I, “The Merchant of Venice.”

RELATED: Buttigieg Believes in Limiting Government Power – So You’re Free To Kill Your Infant

In their paper, the authors also write that they “consider the possibility that the mere experience of pain, without the capacity for self reflection, is morally significant.” Neonatologist Dr. Robin Pierucci points out that not only the preponderance of scientific evidence but also the vast experience of medical workers in the neonatal clinic make the existence of fetal pain undeniable.

Denying the science doesn’t make the pain go away. And the common human experience of pain, which is, indeed, “morally significant,” means we are morally bound to recognize and prevent that pain. Likewise, we are bound to refrain from acts that inflict pain upon a fellow human being.

That mercy, as Shakespeare says, provides a blessing to us as well as to the unborn child.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Democratic presidential primary candidate Elizabeth Warren officially unveiled legislation this week that would reallocate billions in federal homeland security funds toward efforts to combat the potential stateside spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

What exactly those efforts might look like was not outlined in the radical-left Massachusetts senator’s plan, however — only where the funding for such a response would be found.

According to a Thursday news release from Warren, a just two-page “Prioritizing Pandemic Prevention Act” would fund American response to the deadly zoonotic disease, which originated in China last month, by reclaiming roughly $10 billion set aside by the Trump administration for the construction of a “racist” wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The coronavirus outbreak poses serious health, diplomatic, and economic threats to the United States, and we must be prepared to confront it head-on,” Warren said. “Rather than use taxpayer dollars to pay for a monument to hate and division, my bill will help ensure that the federal government has the resources it needs to adequately respond to this emergency.”

“‘I’m going to be introducing a plan tomorrow to take every dime that the President is now spending on his racist wall at our southern border and divert it to work on the coronavirus,” Elizabeth Warren says #CNNTownHall pic.twitter.com/I3WTbNlBzV

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 27, 2020

TRENDING: CNN and MSNBC Air Bloomberg Ad with 9/11 Lie, Don’t Bother Calling It Fake News

Known to be transmissible among human beings, the latest strain of coronavirus, a disease similar in genetic composition to SARS, was believed Thursday to have spread to more than 82,000 people globally and killed roughly 2,700, according to CNN.

The disease triggered panic over the weekend as more than 1,000 new cases began cropping up across South Korea, Italy and the Middle East. Many had believed it to be simply a Chinese problem, with little more than three percent of total global cases tallied outside the East Asian nation.

Blame for a corresponding weekend drop in global markets has in turn been laid at the feet of the disease by establishment media figures and on Tuesday prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a public warning that the disease would almost certainly take hold in the U.S.

Numerous Democratic opponents to the president have since issued public statements rebuking his leadership in light of the global outbreak and demanding that more be done than simple investment in vaccine-related research and increased airport screenings of foreign travelers.

Warren has followed suit, posting to social media several times throughout the week to accuse Trump of “absolutely bungling” its coronavirus response.

The Trump White House had requested Monday that Congress allocate roughly $1.25 billion in untouched capital as emergency funding for executive disease response efforts, according to Politico.

But it was too little too late, the Massachusetts senator claimed Tuesday.

Conservative cuts to public health and foreign aid budgets, Warren accused, had largely been responsible for what she referred to as reactive “scrambling” by the Trump administration in order to organize a scientific response and mitigate the effects of the outbreak on U.S. supply chains.

“Even worse, Trump refuses to centralize crisis management in the White House — allowing CDC scientists to be overruled and sowing internal dysfunction,” Warren said. “All this mismanagement casts doubt on how effectively he can deploy emergency funding.”

RELATED: ‘Shark Tank’ Star Barbara Corcoran Scammed Out of $388,700 Because of 1 Letter No One Noticed

“Like so much else, the Trump administration’s bungled response to the coronavirus outbreak is a mess,” she added. “As president, I will lead a competent administration prepared to combat outbreaks — because our public health, economy, and national security depend on it.”

So how do you control the spread if you can’t control who comes into your country, genius?

— Nick Searcy, INTERNATIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) February 27, 2020

Elizabeth Warren’s response to the coronavirus is to open the borders wider

This idea is both irresponsible and childish and disqualifies her from ever holding the presidency https://t.co/mQnz5x8SrP

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) February 27, 2020

Elizabeth Warren just introduced a bill to redirect funds from border security to fight the Coronavirus

She wants to open the border to stop the spread of a pandemic?

Democrats are politicizing a global health crisis just to own Trump

They hate him more than they love America

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) February 27, 2020

Warren initially announced intentions to introduce her “Prioritizing Pandemic Prevention Act” to the Senate during a CNN presidential primary town hall Wednesday night, suggesting to the cheers of audience members that “every dime” of Trump’s border wall funding would be diverted to coronavirus response efforts if she had her way.

Right-wing pundits have not, however, been kind to the radical-left senator’s vague plan, panning it as a “childish” effort to slight the president — and one that may in fact leave the U.S. at higher risk of a public health crisis at that.

“Elizabeth Warren’s response to the coronavirus is to open the borders wider,” One America News Network host Jack Posobiec responded on Twitter. “This idea is both irresponsible and childish and disqualifies her from ever holding the presidency.”

The notion that a potential cross-border, human-to-human health crisis could be prevented with a decreased focus on immigration and border security, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk suggested, was foolish and political in nature.

“Warren just introduced a bill to redirect funds from border security to fight the Coronavirus,” Kirk wrote. “She wants to open the border to stop the spread of a pandemic?”

“Democrats are politicizing a global health crisis just to own Trump. They hate him more than they love America,” he added.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.