Malawi Wire

Facebook says it is shutting down its facial recognition system.

Citing “growing societal concerns” about the technology that can automatically identify people in photos and videos, the company says it will continue to work on the technology to try to address issues.

“Regulators are still in the process of providing a clear set of rules governing its use,” Jerome Pesenti, vice president of artificial intelligence at Facebook, said in a blog post. “Amid this ongoing uncertainty, we believe that limiting the use of facial recognition to a narrow set of use cases is appropriate.”

The move will delete the “facial recognition templates” of more than 1 billion people, Reuters reported. Facebook said that one-third of its daily active users opted into the technology.

The deletions should be done by December, the company said.

The company also said that a tool that creates audible descriptions of photos for the visually impaired will function normally, but will no longer include the names of people in photos.

Facebook, which rebranded itself as Meta last week, doesn’t appear to be shutting the door permanently on facial recognition.

“Looking ahead, we still see facial recognition technology as a powerful tool, for example, for people needing to verify their identity or to prevent fraud and impersonation,” the company wrote, adding it will “continue working on these technologies and engaging outside experts.”

Source: Voice of America

Philanthropist Bill Gates says the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will donate $315 million to help small farmers around the world grow crops that will adapt to climate change.

In an interview with VOA from Glasgow where he is attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference, Gates said the money will go to a seed consortium which will help farmers thrive in changing environments.

The interview was edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: Help us visualize the scope of the problem when it comes to climate change. What are we facing and how much should we be concerned?

A: Well, climate change is one of the biggest challenges mankind has ever faced. Year by year, because of these carbon emissions, the climate will be getting hotter and that means, particularly anywhere near the equator, the ability to do outdoor farming or outdoor construction work will become impossible. And so that’ll really destabilize people who live in these tropical zones. And so we have to do two things: we have to stop those emissions, where there’s an ambitious goal to do that by 2050, and then in the meantime we need to help countries adapt to these changing weather conditions, for example, you know, giving them better seeds.

Q: How are we going to know that COP 26 is a success?

A: We’ve deeply engaged the private sector. We’ve identified the need for innovation and how we get every sector working together to drive that innovation. And we’re now paying significant effort to adaptation. And so those three things were not there in Paris. I’m not saying that the commitments here are good enough. We need to see over the next five years the same type of increased engagement on the different issues, you know, better policies, more private sector and more innovation, including the innovation that’s focused on the adaptation.

Q: What else are you referring to in terms of innovation?

A: A number of countries are announcing increased resources, including President Biden. We’re announcing $315 million over the next three years for the seed consortium which is called the CG System. That makes the seeds for all the different countries and the big priority for that money will be seeds that can be even more productive despite the challenge of climate change.

And so overall we expect that an additional billion dollars, including our money, will be committed to that effort. That has the potential to benefit literally hundreds of millions of these smallholder farmers. So probably won’t get the attention it deserves, but probably the biggest move for adaptation using innovation for that will be announced here.

Q: What are your thoughts on the impact of climate change in underdeveloped countries, especially in a region like Africa?

A: Well, as you say, it’s a great injustice. And in fact, my interest in climate change came from seeing that through our agricultural work in Africa the farmers were often having a more difficult time. And so they’re already facing these difficulties, which will get significantly worse between now and the end of the century. And so I studied the issue of climate change and the Gates Foundation took on this adaptation as a big priority. That wasn’t getting much attention. So I joined together with some others to create the ‘Commission on Adaptation’ and we had …a lot of great participation and did a report that highlighted some of these key investments.

Q: What do you think all of us can do to contribute to this global solution in fighting climate change?

A: Well, certainly there are products that have lower emissions…In rich countries, you know, we are starting to have food indications of which kinds of food cause what emissions. And we have more and more electric cars. You know we have the ability to heat your home with what’s called an electric heat pump versus using a hydrocarbon like natural gas to your house. You know I would say that for the individual, political engagement is also important because this is a problem where we have to make near-term investments (and) even some short-term sacrifice to get the long-term benefit of having drastic climate change impacts. And so, educating people that this is very worth doing, particularly getting young people engaged.

Source: Voice of America

The U.S. Supreme Court heard challenges Monday to a Texas law that imposes a near total ban on abortion after six weeks.

The Republican-backed Texas law bars abortions once cardiac activity has been detected in an embryo, which typically happens at six weeks – a point when some women are not yet aware they are pregnant.

The law also allows members of the public to sue people who may have facilitated an abortion after six weeks, taking enforcement out of the hands of state officials.

The justices heard separate challenges to the law from President Joe Biden’s administration and from abortion providers.

In their questioning of lawyers appearing before the court Monday, the justices suggested the law’s atypical enforcement structure could be problematic.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether defendants who are sued under the law could ever get a “full airing” of the constitutional claims on the right to an abortion. The law allows defendants to bring up such claims only after they have been sued.

Barrett was one of five conservative justices who allowed the Texas law to take effect while legal challenges to it played out in court.

Brett Kavanaugh, another of the justices who let the law take effect, also raised potential problems with its unusual structure. He said the law “exploited” a “loophole” in court precedent in how it is enforced with lawsuits. He raised the possibility that the court could “close that loophole.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the law was written by “some geniuses” to evade legal principles.

In the cases brought before the Supreme Court Monday, the justices are not directly considering the constitutionality of the right to an abortion.

Abortion rights, however, were part of arguments made to the court by lawyers challenging the Texas law.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the Texas law “clearly violates” Supreme Court precedents, referring to Roe v. Wade, the decades-old ruling that gives women the right to an abortion in most circumstances. The 1973 Supreme Court decision recognizes a constitutional right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The high court is being closely watched on issues of abortion after it allowed the restrictive Texas law to take effect in September.

The court became more conservative under President Donald Trump, who appointed three justices to the nine-seat bench. Conservatives now hold a 6-3 majority.

The court scheduled oral arguments for December 1 to hear a case concerning a Mississippi state law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That case directly asks justices to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A poll released by Monmouth University in September found that 62% of Americans believe abortion should either always be legal or be legal with some limitations. Twenty-four percent said it should be illegal except in rare circumstances such as rape, while 11% said it should always be illegal.

Source: Voice of America