Category: Big Tech

Posted on

Facedrive/Microsoft Partner For TraceSCAN Distribution (Wearable Contact Tracing Equipment)

A company called Facedrive has gotten together with the University of Waterloo to create a wearable device to aid in contact tracing. Now that it appears to be operational, it’s ready to sell in collaboration with Microsoft. You remember Microsoft, they helped launched ID2020 back in 2016. Their ex-CEO, Bill Gates, wants to vaccinate the planet.

[Facedrive] is pleased to announce that its contact-tracing platform TraceSCAN has achieved co-sell ready status on the Microsoft Partner Network. Achieving ‘co-sell ready’ status will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN with a significant scaling opportunity by gaining access to Microsoft global customer and partner base. Furthermore, ‘co-sell ready’ status will enable Facedrive and Microsoft teams to collaborate globally on promoting TraceSCAN as a holistic connected health solution powered by Microsoft Azure technology stack. Specifically, Microsoft sales and consulting teams will be able to offer TraceSCAN contact-tracing to their corporate customers as an integrated feature within the enterprise business applications powered by Microsoft products. The greater choice and flexibility provided by being part of the Microsoft Partner’s Network will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN customers with a richer set of options in implementing their contact tracing programs.

It seems that a business deal with Microsoft has been in the works for a while. Considering Gates’ many ties to globalism and this “pandemic”, associations with his former company are worth careful scrutiny.

July 2020, Microsoft announced that TraceSCAN wearables would be available, but distribution would be limited to partners only, for now. This was a sort of soft launch for the product. In September, commercial distribution of the the tracking units started.

December 2020, TraceSCAN received Federal certification from Innovation, Science and Economic Development of Canada (ISED). This used to be known as Industry Canada.

Facedrive appears to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (or AI) into its platform. The company claims that this will assist in forecasting the spread of COVID-19 and predicting any further outbreaks of the virus. In a sense, this device on your wrist would be used to help drive new modelling to make predictions for further lockdowns and martial law.

The AI algorithms will help detect of infected individuals that have not been in direct contact with a positive case but might have been a 2nd or 3rd-degree contact. As with everything, the devil’s in the details, and we would have to know what assumptions and calculations are being made.

The creepiness factor keeps going from there. TraceSCAN’s contact tracing wearables are also a means to track and trace children (even very young children) in their daily movements. Of course, this is being sold as safety and security.

Facedrive itself explains in broad strokes how their technology would work. This amounts to putting a GPS tracker on your wrist, and having your movements and medical conditions tracked. At the same time, this could be done to hundreds, or thousands of other people. This isn’t quite microchipping the cattle, but it’s getting pretty close.

What can this technology be used for? Facedrive gives a list of possibilities:

  • Secure access to facilities
  • Linking to existing services
  • Time tracking
  • Attendance notification
  • Immunization passport
  • Remote monitoring of health metrics

Have to admire how blunt this company is about being able to repurpose their product for more general purposes. At least they don’t lie like the politicians claiming that these trackers will only be limited to this so-called pandemic.

Even back in July 2020, the Ontario Government announced support for this company. As with most things in politics, the magic handshake is needed to get results. From the Provincial database, we are able to see who’s been pulling Ford’s strings this time.

With a quick visit to the Ontario Lobbying Registry, we can see that Facedrive has been active in recent months, using connected lobbyists to get the Government interested in their technology. And it may have helped this company secure a $2.5 million payment from Toronto.

It’s worth a reminder that Microsoft and the Ontario Ministry of Health are both part of the Vaccine Credential Initiative.

Description
VCI is working to enable individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 to access their vaccination records in a secure, verifiable and privacy-preserving way. The Coalition is developing a standard model for organizations administering COVID-19 vaccines to make credentials available in an accessible, interoperable, digital format. empower consumers to conveniently access, store, and share digital COVID-19 vaccination records

Ontario is working towards both a contact tracing system which far expands any legitimate use, and a universal vaccine certification. Anyone remember when this was just 2 weeks to flatten the curve?

Now, who were the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings of Doug Ford? It should surprise no one that the lobbyists involved have ties to the Conservatives both in Ontario, and Federally.

Stephanie Dunlop was involved in both of Erin O’Toole’s runs for the CPC leadership (2017 and 2020). She was also the Candidate Support Lead for the PC Party in 2018. This helped install Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario.

James Lin worked in the Government of Doug Ford, before going over to Hill + Knowlton. He was in the Ministry of Transportation, as a Policy Director. Additionally, he was an Advisor in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport. He was also involved in the Toronto City Council when Rob and Doug Ford were there. February 2021, she lobbied the Manitoba Government of Brian Pallister over the same contact-tracing platform.

Laura Grossman spent 5 years working for the Government of Canada during the Harper reign.

Also worth noting, Natalie Sigalet, a Senior Account Director at the lobbying firm, Hill + Knowlton, has reached out to the Alberta Government of Jason Kenney. She worked in the Office of the Premier of Alberta when Allison Redford was in charge. Presumably, she’s still pretty connected.

Looking at the Federal Registry, Facedrive is listed there several times. Interestingly, in their 2020 registrations, they list no Government (taxpayer) funding in 2019. However, there is expected to be some coming up from Finance Canada and the Ontario Centre of Excellence. This appears to reference the $2.5 million secured from Ford.

In what should surprise no one, Facedrive has been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Makes sense, as they are very much invested in promoting the pandemic narrative.

In the Azure Marketplace, Microsoft outlines the main goals of this product:
[1] Case Investigation
[2] Contact Tracing
[3] Contact Support
[4] Self Quarantine

Now all of this may sound harmless enough, especially since the self-quarantine is recommended. However, what happens when it becomes mandatory, and wearing this device isn’t a choice? Also, who will be monitoring this system, and what teeth will there be?

This system is just a few short steps away from becoming a Government run chipping and monitoring system. While this may sound hyperbolic, consider where we were even a year ago.

From the looks of things, Microsoft will be used as a hosting platform for which Facedrive is able to launch its product on a much larger scale. However, MS is also eligible to sell units of TraceSCAN under the terms of the arrangement with Facedrive. Of course, that leads to all kinds of privacy and security issues, including who will have access to this data.

And a serious question: what happens if the hosting or management of this system (or part of it) gets sold or outsourced to someone else? What privacy considerations will there be?

Just looking at the products and services offered by Azure, it includes: AI, analytics, blockchain and mixed reality. For people who value any semblance of bodily autonomy and privacy, this needs to be seriously looked into before ever signing on.

And no, this isn’t something new. Even in April 2020, the early days of this psy-op, Microsoft had partnered with the University of Washington. How strange that tracking people was their immediate response.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_vdNM33Ug&
(2) https://id2020.org/alliance
(3) https://health.facedrive.com/
(4) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-achieves-co-sell-ready-status-with-microsoft/
(5) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-wearables-app-now-available-on-microsoft-store-for-partners/
(6) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/tracescan-starts-shipping-wearable-devices/
(7) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrive-healths-contact-tracing-technology-tracescan-secures-federal-certification-from-innovation-science-and-economic-development-of-canada-ised/
(8) https://health.facedrive.com/how-it-works/
(9) https://health.facedrive.com/tracescan-ai-platform/
(10) https://health.facedrive.com/school-industry/
(11) https://twitter.com/FacedriveHealth
(12) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-covid-19-tracescan-app-receives-support-of-ontario-government/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-credential-initiative-passports-digital-health-passes-ontario-ford/
(14) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/Default.aspx
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephdunlop/
(16) https://registry.lobbyistregistrar.mb.ca/lra/reporting/public/registrar/view.do?method=get&registrationId=414590
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslin16/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-grosman-7331a28b/
(19) Facedrive Registration Alberta Sheila Wisniewski
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/natalie-sigalet-83b5556a/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367466&regId=904875
(22) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(23) https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RWIzL5
(24) Azure Marketplace Facedrive TraceSCAN
(25) https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/
(26) https://www.geekwire.com/2020/uw-microsoft-release-contact-tracing-app-aiming-battle-covid-19-preserving-privacy/

Posted on

WHO Paper On Vaccine Passport Implementation & Specifications Funded By Gates, Rockefeller

Despite the claim of “VACCINE PASSPORTS” being dismissed as a lunatic conspiracy theory in 2020, the World Health Organization has put out its own guidelines for establishing such a system. This issue isn’t just being discussed, but has been studied and written about. Here is the paper they just released. It covers technical specifications and implementation guidance.

Then again, WHO published a paper on MANDATORY VACCINATION back in April 2021, despite repeatedly saying that such predictions were conspiracy theories. Absurdly, WHO admits these so-called vaccines only have emergency use authorization, but were still open to the idea of making them compulsory.

Reading through this paper, disturbing, yet unsurprising things emerge.

Page v: Contributors to this paper are named. These include: Beth Newcombe (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada); Maxwell J Smith (University of Toronto); Stephen Wilson (Lockstep Group); Beverly Knight (ISO TC215 Health Informatics Canadian Mirror Committee); all members and observers of the Smart Vaccination Certificate
Working Group.

Lockstep Group is an interesting name, considering that this “pandemic” is heavily based on the Lockstep Narrative that was laid out a decade ago. Of course, that document came from none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.

And a WHO operative working at the University of Toronto? Who would ever have seen that one coming? It’s not like Rockefeller was a major donor to that school, or was heavily involved in starting up the public health industry.

Page vi: For starters, the funders of this project are listed very briefly. “This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.”

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.

Then again, GAVI (which Gates finances), Microsoft (which Gates used to run), and the Rockefeller Foundation all contributed to the launch of ID2020, a global digital identification initiative. This was started back in 2016. But connecting the obvious dots is probably a conspiracy theory.

Microsoft is also a partner (along with the Ontario Ministry of Health), of the Vaccine Credential Initiative. But again, nothing to see here.

As for Fondation Botnar: it claims to: “champion the use of AI and digital technology to improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people in growing urban environments around the world. We do this by supporting research, catalysing diverse partners, and investing in scalable solutions.” Not that there would be a business angle here, or anything.

Page xiv: Not too long ago, there was heavy criticism when it was predicted that vaccination would become a requirement for work, education, or international travel? Instead, those uses, are explicitly suggested by WHO as places to implement them.

The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.

Page 2, Section 1.2: This isn’t just some academic piece or philosophical musings. The authors of this paper fully intend for this to be used by Governments. Furthermore, businesses and trade organizations will be expected to help out in the support of this. We would have a few of those, right? See here and here for some examples.

Page 5, Section 1.5: Remember those International Health Regulations, which Governments insist are not legally binding? Turns out they actually are, and formed part of the basis for this guidance document. Also, the 2005 Quarantine Act was in fact based on anticipated rules of the 3rd Edition WHO-IHR, which came out that year.

Also, those papers which comes as a result of those emergency meetings (8 so far) are binding on countries as well. They are instructions — or at least guidelines — for how to run internal affairs.

As with any digital solution, there are ethical considerations, such as potential impacts on equity and on equitable access, and data protection principles that need to inform the design of the technical specifications, as well as provide guidance on how resulting solutions can be ethically implemented. The following sections discuss some key ethical considerations and data protection principles that Member States are encouraged to – and, where they have legal obligations, must – include in their respective deployments of any DDCC:VS. These ethical considerations and data protection principles have also informed the design criteria for a DDCC:VS outlined in the following section

Page 6, Chapter 2: We start getting into the ethical issues at this point. Strangely, there doesn’t seem to be any mention that these “vaccines” are only authorized by a continued emergency status. Also, there is apparently no moral dilemma over policies that amount to coercion.

While COVID-19 vaccines may eventually be widely accessible, current global distribution is inequitable and there are populations that vaccination programmes may struggle to reach due to, for example, geography, terrain, transient or nomadic movement, war and conflict, or illegal or insecure residency status. These hard-to-reach populations (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons) are disproportionately less likely to have an opportunity to be vaccinated and obtain a DDCC:VS.

Page 8, Section 2.1.1: Although there seems to be no concern with coercion of unproven injections onto the general public, they are concerned about people being in the country illegally. Now, this is not because this is morally wrong, but since it will make such people harder to reach.

Chapter 2 goes on and on about privacy of information, but intentionally omits mentioning how wrong it is to pressure people into taking these concoctions in the first place. WHO seems to be very partial and selective about what issues are worth considering. And no, this topic hasn’t been “settled” or anything of the sort.

Chapters 3 through 6 go into considerable detail about technical requirements for how to implement such a system, and how to ensure everyone getting injected has a record of it. The particulars are beyond the scope of this review, but yes, they are building national (and most likely international) databases of vaccinations.

Chapter 7 goes into national considerations, and how countries can implement systems that each other can trust. Apparently, a central authority is to be trusted to maintain and update these records. It also addresses the revocation of vaccination status, not that it will ever be abused.

Chapter 8 gets into short and long term goals. Score another one for the conspiracy nuts, but WHO talks about how this system, once fully implemented, could be used for OTHER health records and databases. It’s almost as if this was meant as some sort of bait-and-switch.

  • SHORT-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a short-term DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate need of the pandemic that includes a clearly established end date and a roadmap towards discontinuing the DDCC:VS solution once COVID-19 is no longer considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the IHR.
  • LONG-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate needs of the pandemic but also to build digital health infrastructure that can be a foundation for digital vaccination certificates beyond COVID-19 (e.g. digital home-based records for childhood immunizations) and support other digital health initiatives.

Page 60: The references used are listed. It’s worth mentioning that the first few have to do with people making counterfeit records. This seems designed to push the narrative that such things are unreliable, and that only a digital system can be run.

Page 60: Reference #13 stands out. It is actually a paper published in 2015, concerning home-based vaccination records as a way to advance immunizations, particularly for children. Now, this was mainly manual (not digital) at the time, but now we are in the next generation.

Page 63: the paper outlines an example of what a digital pass would look like. A QR code would be visible, but inside, there would be the personal information about what shots the person had. Interesting that it’s referred to as a National Vaccine Card. That was something else previously dismissed as a tin-foil hat ranting.

Back in December 2020, the WHO put out a call for nominations for “experts” for the Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specifications and standards of an incoming vaccine passport system. In an Orwellian twist, these passports (or digital passes, or whatever name one wants) are framed as a sort of human rights issue. Even as the WHO and their puppets are reassuring people that these “movement licenses” are a fantasy, they are recruiting people to look at the feasibility.

At what point can it no longer be denied that all of this is very well planned and coordinated?

(1) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/343361
(2) WHO Vaccine Passport Specifications Guidelines
(3) https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/world-health-organization-open-call-for-nomination-of-experts-to-contribute-to-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-technical-specifications-and-standards-application-deadline-14-december-2020
(4) https://id2020.org/
(5) https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest
(6) https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2021-revised-scope-and-direction-for-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-and-who-s-role-in-the-global-health-trust-framework
(7) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
(8) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(9) https://www.who.int/news/item/23-01-2020-statement-on-the-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(10) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(11) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-05-2020-statement-on-the-third-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(12) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-08-2020-statement-on-the-fourth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(13) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-10-2020-statement-on-the-fifth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(14) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-01-2021-statement-on-the-sixth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(15) https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2021-statement-on-the-seventh-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(16) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2021-statement-on-the-eighth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Posted on

Expanded Drone Use Coming To Canada And Other Countries

Drones are about to become far more common and not just in Canada. Companies and countries are seeing what options there are in using this technology, but only for “safe” purposes.

One company, Drone Delivery Canada is trying to change the laws here so that it can carry larger loads, and for longer distances. They seem to think that drone use is going to become mainstream very soon.

While most of the applications specified by Drone Delivery Canada seem harmless enough, a few of are sure to raise eyebrows:

HEALTHCARE
The current situation as related to COVID-19, as unfortunate and challenging as it is, demonstrates that delivery drones are an ideal solution to limit person-to-person contact in healthcare. Drone Delivery Canada is committed to helping Canada effectively manage the current situation and potentially help stop the pandemic, especially in remote communities.

Of course, if people weren’t able to get certain supplies (such as for being forcibly quarantined), this could also serve as a form of prisoner feeding system. Depending on the setup, it could reduce the chances people have to break out.

OTHER APPLICATIONS
While our focus is predominantly on moving cargo, Drone Delivery Canada has proven experience in carrying specialized electronic equipment. Payloads can also be specialized cameras, sensors or other instruments for various applications such as – infrastructure inspection, military (C3I – command, control, communications, intelligence), border security, crowd monitoring, mining, oil & gas, surveying, mapping, crop spraying, etc.

These drones can be used to carry specialized equipment, such as cameras, and can be used for military and intelligence gathering. It could also serve in crowd monitoring. While this may sound paranoid, such a thing is already underway elsewhere.

Worth noting: G4S, the firm Brian Pallister hired for Manitoba, also has its foot in the door as far as using drones. The company’s services include intelligence gathering, and arrest and detention.

While these drones (above) supposedly aren’t equipped with facial recognition, it wouldn’t be too hard to implement it. Even without it, the idea of this kind of surveillance is downright nefarious and creepy. These people are unknowingly (or maybe knowingly) helping force a police state.

Even if Drone Delivery Canada (and similar companies) were using these drones primarily for deliveries, it would still require a vast surveillance apparatus to ensure that they were being delivered where they should be. Also, wouldn’t it potentially put many people out of work, as their jobs become obsolete?

DDC describes drone delivery itself as a “disruptive technology“. They seem to be aware of the impacts this could potentially have.

In June 2019 DDC and Air Canada reached an agreement, which would see the airliner promoting the drone company. Tim Strauss is both an Advisor for DDC, and a Vice President for Air Canada.

Incidently, the Canadian Government has put out several tenders recently, looking for suppliers to bid on drone construction. However, that’s probably nothing to worry about.

Recently, Jason Kenney was forced to cancel a proposal to have drones surveilling Albertans on vacation. He claimed it was all a mistake, and he never intended to spy on anyone.

Collaborating with international partners
Canada’s drone industry is part of a broader aviation network, which requires collaboration to support innovation, and ensure the safety of our aviation system. Transport Canada works with other state civil aviation agencies from around the world to share information, align Canadian drone policy, and share best practices.
.
For example, Transport Canada has a strong relationship with the United States Federal Aviation Administration, and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to share results of RPAS research, such as the effects of icing conditions on drones, given the Canadian climate. Transport Canada is also a participant in the FAA’s International Roundtable on RPAS research which brings together multiple civil aviation authorities and academic institutions from around the world to share information.

The Canadian Government has formed a “Drone Advisory Committee”, to help it understand impacts and potential for flying these everywhere. DDC is on the committee. This is also happening internationally. What a coincidence that we had a global pandemic and needed to “reset” society. And unmanned aircraft has been a topic of discussion for a long time.

A quick look at Sussex Strategy Group, the firm lobbying for Drone Delivery Canada, shows that it has plenty of political ties. This shouldn’t be too surprising.

This is how things are done in Canada. Simply hire political cronies to make the magic handshake, and suddenly, your proposal gets approved.

As for having everything delivered by drones, it’s not like that was predicted by the World Economic Forum, several years ago. You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. And this seems to be where things are going.

(1) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/
(2) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/applications/
(3) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/about-us/
(4) https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2019-06-04-Air-Canada-and-Drone-Delivery-Canada-Corp-Announce-a-Sales-Agency-Agreement
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368514&regId=908727
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5skCHHijcY
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdeCV8FesAs
(8) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/
(9) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00959355
(10) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/award-notice/PW-QCL-056-18152-001
(11) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-QCL-056-18152
(12) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00954577
(13) https://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/after-drawing-flak-province-cancels-plan-to-monitor-campers-with-drones/wcm/52b24f78-f6ee-4269-b98e-1337445cbef6
(14) https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-safety/drone-innovation-collaboration
(15) http://jarus-rpas.org/
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73K6TrkVGKE
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/naomishuman/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-pellegrini-sussex-4853ba27/
(19) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brett-james-0442482/
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/devin-mccarthy-9676543b/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-25c-brian-pallister-hires-intelligence-detention-firm-g4s-for-security-in-manitoba/
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-25d-meet-capital-hill-group-the-lobbying-firm-pushing-for-g4s-contracts/

Posted on

BC Covid Modelling: Open Source Software Hosted By GitHub (Microsoft’s People), Run By SFU/UBC Academics

Ever get the feeling that the Government in British Columbia just makes it up as they go along? Suspect that there really is no rational or scientific basis for anything that they do?

As for the term “Bayesian”, it refers to: being, relating to, or involving statistical methods that assign probabilities or distributions to events (such as rain tomorrow) or parameters (such as a population mean) based on experience or best guesses before experimentation and data collection and that apply Bayes’ theorem to revise the probabilities and distributions after obtaining experimental data. (From Merriam)

By itself, a Bayesian approach isn’t too bad. The problem is when garbage data and assumptions go in, the inevitable result is garbage outcomes.

Apart from BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry’s repeated admissions of there being no scientific basis, the BCCDC has also revealed that information. They really do just make it up, and no one in the mainstream press bothers to call out any of this.

And what about the modelling that Bonnie is referring to? Who’s cooking up the models that are being used to strip away the rights of Canadians?

Previously On BC Government Reporting…..

Thank you for your email of March 11, 2021. The Honourable Adrian Dix, Minister of Health has asked me to respond to your email regarding COVID-19 modelling. I am pleased to respond on his behalf. I apologies for the delayed response.

COVID-19 modelling in British Columbia (BC) is undertaken by the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC). BCCDC projections for COVID-19 are done using a dynamic compartmental model fit to reported case data using a Bayesian Framework:
• Published model: Anderson et al. 2020. PLoS Comp. Biol. 16(12) e1008274 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008274
• Publicly available software: https://github.com/seananderson/covidseir
• Model enhancements incorporating vaccination and variants of concern (VoC) are currently being prepared for publication

The BCCDC generates provincial and regional model fits to current data and projected numbers of new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths; and provincial and regional time-varying estimates of average daily transmission rate (Rt). Projections incorporate the current BC vaccination schedule and variable rates of contact and susceptibility by age. Vaccination is modeled using the current proposed one dose schedule by age group, with all eligible age groups vaccinated by end of June 2021, adjusting for age-dependent impact on transmission. A 15 percent vaccine hesitancy is assumed for all age groups.

According to the results of a freedom of information request, BC’s “Covid modelling” comes from a group of academics, primarily from the University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University. They also use open-source software from GitHub, which can be freely accessed.

The BCCDC tacitly admitted there was no science behind any of the measures they implemented. Instead, they deflected as it being “a rational approach”. But how rational can it be when there’s no hard science to support it?

While the software seems to be hosted on GitHub, bought in 2018 by Microsoft, it’s unclear who actually developed it, since the specific program isn’t listed. In any event, GitHub is a forum where software can be given a platform.

Who Are The People Running GitHub?

Many of the people running GitHub have ties to Microsoft and Google. Not too shocking since the $7.5 billion acquisition. That is quite interesting indeed, considering their respective roles in the “pandemic”. Both companies are part of VCI, the Vaccine Credential Initiative, and Microsoft helped launch ID2020 back in 2016. Same company that wants to give everyone a digital ID is also pushing the doomsday modelling to help justify the measures.

What else is GitHub up to? Here are just a few of their recent projects:
-An app to track vaccination bookings
-A notification system for vaccination bookings
-A vaccine passport app
-More on a vaccine passport
-A contact tracing app for Switzerland
–QR codes to prove vaccination status
–QR decoder for Quebec contact tracing app

It’s interesting that the modelling software is open source. Just a theory, but perhaps it’s done in order to drive business to the more lucrative side projects.

Who Are The “Experts” Doing The Modelling?

  • Sean C. Anderson – Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Andrew M. Edwards – Department of Biology, University of Victoria
  • Madi Yerlanov – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University
  • Nicola Mulberry – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University
  • Jessica E. Stockdale – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University
  • Sarafa A. Iyaniwura – BCCDC, Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia
  • Rebeca C. Falcao – BCCDC, Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia
  • Michael C. Otterstatter – BCCDC, School of Public Health, University of British Columbia
  • Michael A. Irvine – British Columbia Children’s Hospital Research Institute
  • Naveed Z. Janjua – BCCDC, School of Public Health, University of British Columbia
  • Daniel Coombs – Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia
  • Caroline Colijn – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University

In the link provided in the FOI response, these are the people involved in conducting the computer modelling. University professors. People who spend their lives in institutions (and not the real world), produce predictions that the Government uses to justify medical tyranny.

And what do they use? Open source software hosted by a company owned by Microsoft and with Google associates. Hard data is lacking, and is replaced by assumptions.

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bayesian
(2) https://github.com
(3) https://github.com/about/leadership
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/natfriedman/
(5) https://archive.is/bqaEE
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/erica-anderson-54b5878/
(7) https://archive.is/XoBay
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/keithba/
(9) https://archive.is/yvcHx
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/dawnbeatty/
(11) https://archive.is/DQZyD
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ebrescia/
(13) https://archive.is/m8WxT
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-dohmke-24855b10/
(15) https://archive.is/H97o2
(16) https://www.linkedin.com/in/tylerfuller/
(17) https://archive.is/nrmYN
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-hanley-b6508913/
(19) https://archive.is/DPd5x
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-heisman-comms/
(21) https://www.linkedin.com/in/shankuniyogi/
(22) https://archive.is/XSZqS
(23) https://www.linkedin.com/in/max-schoening/
(24) https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-github-for-7-5-billion/
(25) https://archive.is/debwV
(26) https://github.com/yashwanthm/cowin-vaccine-booking
(27) https://github.com/ayushi7rawat/CoWin-Vaccine-Notifier
(28) https://github.com/SwissCovid/swisscovid-app-android
(29) https://github.com/vax-me/vaccine-passport-app
(30) https://github.com/vaccine-passport/docs
(31) https://github.com/minvws/nl-covid19-testvac-qr-core
(32) https://github.com/fproulx/shc-covid19-decoder
(33) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37j-bccdc-admits-no-science-behind-restricting-peoples-freedoms-just-models-assumptions/
(34) https://id2020.org/

Posted on

CV #25(E): Canadian Government Seeking Bids For “Biometric Vaccine Passports” System Creation

Where it started: Vaccine passports are just a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Stop with the tin foil hat nonsense.
Where it’s going: We need a company to develop vaccine passport system, and an authority to manage it.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has an urgent need to secure the services of a global organization (the “Contractor”) with knowledge of and expertise in biometrics. The Agency requires this organization to assist with the immediate establishment of an Office of Biometrics and Identity Management and to work with the Agency in researching, planning for and rapidly developing a strategy and roadmap related to the use of Digital solutions enabled by supporting technologies in biometrics, in response to the COVID 19 situation and other operational priorities. The Contractor will bring knowledge, capabilities, and experience to support CBSA’s urgent need to establish a biometric strategy, biometric foundation and ultimately a Biometrics Authority (Centre of Excellence). Specifically, the “contractor” will assist the CBSA with the development of a comprehensive approach and plan to manage, evolve and adapt in using biometrics to deliver the mission of the agency while considering our interrelationship and joint ventures with other federal government departments and agencies and our international partners.

Also, what is the “Office of Biometrics and Identity Management” that this refers to? Who will run it? Who will have access to this data? Will the information be used for commercial or research purposes. There are of course similar questions concerning this “Biometrics Authority”.

Come to think of it: the Privacy Commissioners’ joint statement doesn’t exactly discourage the creation of vaccine passports.

At its essence, a vaccine passport presumes that individuals will be required or requested to disclose personal health information – their vaccine/immunity status – in exchange for goods, services and/or access to certain premises or locations. While this may offer substantial public benefit, it is an encroachment on civil liberties that should be taken only after careful consideration. This statement focuses on the privacy considerations.

Vaccine passports must be developed and implemented in compliance with applicable privacy laws. They should also incorporate privacy best practices in order to achieve the highest level of privacy protection commensurate with the sensitivity of the personal health information that will be collected, used or disclosed.

For businesses and other entities that are subject to private sector privacy laws and are considering some form of vaccine passport, the clearest authority under which to proceed would be a newly enacted public health order or law requiring the presentation of a vaccine passport to enter a premises or receive a service. Absent such order or law, i.e. relying on existing privacy legislation, consent may provide sufficient authority if it meets all of the following conditions, which must be applied contextually given the specifics of the vaccine passport and its implementation:

Can we now expect some new order or law to give businesses the power to refuse people entry based on not sharing this information? And what guarantees do we have that this will not be abused or shared anyway? There are safeguards (on paper at least), but what are those actually worth?

The Vaccine Credential Initiative, which includes Microsoft, seems poised to push such a global version. This should surprise no one at this point. A cynic might wonder if the whole thing was planned.

(1) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00958775
(2) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2021/06/07/c375d34f163718ff11b06433e7b68d71/1000357607_-_npp_eng.pdf
(3) Vaccine Passport Notice Of Proposed Procurement
(4) https://priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/speeches/2021/s-d_20210519/
(5) https://vci.org/

Posted on

CV #25: De-Anonymizing The Anonymous Contact Tracing App

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Disclaimer: Limited Personal Knowledge

To start out with a disclaimer, I am hardly any sort of expert on cell phone technology. So this article is written from a more lay perspective. Nonetheless, the announcement of the contact tracing app in Canada opens up a lot of hard questions that need to be answered. Can the Government (or any government) be trusted with this claim, and is it even feasible?

This isn’t meant to be an alarmist piece, but there are very real concerns and doubts about just how confidential all of this will remain. Consider the following.

3. Research Into Re-Identification, 2019

While rich medical, behavioral, and socio-demographic data are key to modern data-driven research, their collection and use raise legitimate privacy concerns. Anonymizing datasets through de-identification and sampling before sharing them has been the main tool used to address those concerns. We here propose a generative copula-based method that can accurately estimate the likelihood of a specific person to be correctly re-identified, even in a heavily incomplete dataset. On 210 populations, our method obtains AUC scores for predicting individual uniqueness ranging from 0.84 to 0.97, with low false-discovery rate. Using our model, we find that 99.98% of Americans would be correctly re-identified in any dataset using 15 demographic attributes. Our results suggest that even heavily sampled anonymized datasets are unlikely to satisfy the modern standards for anonymization set forth by GDPR and seriously challenge the technical and legal adequacy of the de-identification release-and-forget model.

De-identification, the process of anonymizing datasets before sharing them, has been the main paradigm used in research and elsewhere to share data while preserving people’s privacy. Data protection laws worldwide consider anonymous data as not personal data anymore allowing it to be freely used, shared, and sold. Academic journals are, e.g., increasingly requiring authors to make anonymous data available to the research community. While standards for anonymous data vary, modern data protection laws, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), consider that each and every person in a dataset has to be protected for the dataset to be considered anonymous. This new higher standard for anonymization is further made clear by the introduction in GDPR of pseudonymous data: data that does not contain obvious identifiers but might be re-identifiable and is therefore within the scope of the law.

This was a research paper released in 2019, before the coronavirus planned-emic hit the world stage. While to long to into depth here, the researchers found and listed many examples of people being able to re-identify people using supposedly anonymized data sets. While original data had many modifiers removed, it was possible to reverse engineer it, and re-establish people’s identities using multiple sets of incomplete data.

Two of the biggest issues in the research were health care data and internet browsing data. They were initially anonymized, but then computers were able to piece together to data and provide names. While not always correct, these techniques were overall very accurate in re-establishing identities.

Research data is widely shared for many purposes. Laws in the West allow for personal information to be shared as long as it is “anonymized” first. However, if that can be undone, then an end run around privacy laws can be accomplished.

Now, this type of bypass of privacy has been underway for a long time. People have to ask whether it will continue (or even escalate), in the face of this so-called pandemic.

4. Governor William Weld’s Medical Info

Re-Identification_of_Welds_Medical_Information

This is an old case, but a good one. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was able to have his medical history re-identified from anonymized medical information. How so? State voter rolls provided birth date and zip code information. Being a public figure, people knew quite a bit about him. Even with redacted records, it was possible to piece it together.

But one doesn’t have to be a politician. With the information available from various databases, a computer scientist can easily piece profiles together.

Keep in mind this was done in 1997, and led to HIPPA, new privacy regulations coming into place. However, that was over 20 years ago, and computers have advanced a long way since. Moreover, internet usage has resulted in astronomical amounts of personal information being available online.

Now for some questions about this app.

5. Will The App Really Be Anonymous?

The first thing that people should be asking is whether claims that this app will be anonymous at all. A healthy distrust of the your government is helpful in all cases. Everything they say and promise should be met with some degree of skepticism.

Bear in mind, this is the same government that thought nothing of having Statistics Canada do data mining of over 500,000 Canadians. They then threw StatsCan under the bus when there was public backlash. It was just 2 years ago, and addressed in those articles.

Beyond distrust of the government, a follow-up must be asked. Even if this were anonymous, as advertised, can it be de-anonymized at a later point? Can the app makers use some decryption to identify users? What about other third parties?

How easy will it be to use AI or to combine partial data sets to re-identify people? What happens when the profiles are “Frankenstein-ed” together? Who gets the data? How will it be used, and will we even know?

6. What Qualifies As Contact?

Is passing someone on the street or in the grocery store sufficient to count as “coming in contact” with someone? is a few seconds enough? A minute? 5 minutes? Sure there is more information coming out, but having some standard would be nice. Knowing what the standard is would also help.

7. Positive Test Linked To Phone Number?

There are plenty of issues with the coronavirus testing itself. However, that is a piece for another day. This is about the privacy aspects.

Suppose you test positive for this virus. What happens then? Do you change the settings on your phone, or does the medical staff then insert your phone number or “random number” into a database of people who have tested positive? Is that result then connected to anything and anyplace you go, or that your phone is reported to have a connection to?

8. Lies About Phone Not Geo-Tagging?

There are claims that there will be no geo-tagging, or storing of locations. How exactly does that work though? How can a phone app determine that a user has been close to someone who has tested positive? It’s difficult to believe that phones would just start collecting the random assigned numbers of everyone it has been close to (though possible I guess), but not record any sort of geographical data?

Any sort of mainstream technology that has GPS tracking can find places, people or things, but does so with reference to spots on a map. How could this contact tracing app determine when phones are close to each other, but not have any geographical reference?

It seems possible that this government app could use geographical references, but then not store the data. However, considering outfits like Google are well ahead in tracking movements, it seems strange to develop this app to not record location data.

9. StatsCan Provides Microdata For Free

Unrestricted access to microdata
Statistics Canada offers Public Use Microdata Files (PUMFs) to institutions and individuals. They are non-aggregated data which are carefully modified and then reviewed to ensure that no individual or business is directly or indirectly identified. These can be accessed directly through the Data Liberation Initiative (DLI) or the PUMF Collection for a subscription fee. Individual files can also be requested at no cost.

For reference, a files can be ordered for free. A purchase of $5,000 per year, which gives unlimited access to all of the microdata used by StatCan in its various research and publications. The data is supposed to be anonymized, but one has to ask how easy it would be to piece together individual or businesses, based on this information, plus other available sources.

StatsCan already has plenty of CV-19 research released and available for the public. It isn’t too much of a stretch to think that searching for where people cluster, or amount of time spent in an area is researched.

10. StatsCan’s “Approved Microdata Linkages”

What does Statistics Canada do with your personal information?
.
We use it to its full potential
Whether Statistics Canada received your information directly from you or through a third party such as another government entity, we use it to its full potential. We avoid having to ask the same question more than once so that we can produce relevant, timely and accurate statistics. Linking Canadians’ information from different files enables Statistics Canada to produce more statistics and research, which are in turn used by decision makers. We will only link personal information when its value to the public good outweighs the intrusion of privacy. For example, we can take the answers you gave on a survey and link them to your tax record. The objective is to draw conclusions based on a large sample of the population. More information on all Approved microdata linkages.

StatsCan openly admits that it will combine data from various sources and combine it. So this “anonymizing” is only done AFTER various things are combined, if it even done at all.

Approved microdata linkages
.
The linking of separate records from different sources can be a very useful and cost-efficient technique in the design, production, analysis and evaluation of statistical data. It can lead to important savings in cost, time, and respondent burden, and, in some cases, it may be the only feasible way to obtain important statistical information. When possible, rather than conducting additional surveys, Statistics Canada uses the information that individuals, businesses and institutions have already provided to the Agency or to other government departments for methodological purposes, data enhancement and subject-matter studies. The following is a list of the microdata linkage submissions that have been reviewed and approved in accordance with the Statistics Canada Directive on Microdata Linkage, starting in January 2000. Choose any of the following titles to view a summary:

To be clear, Statistics Canada already has the system of combining various datasets (including information provided by other government agencies, schools, businesses and institutions. In fact, it has gone this for a good 20 years now. Presumably the anonymising is done AFTER this is compiled.

Looking at the approved microdata linking from 2019 (the most recent year), we get:

  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)

Since Statistics Canada already incorporates health information and combines various sets of data to make “more complete profiles”, it is clearly possible to add CV tests — both positive and negative as well. While calling for it publicly is political poison, who’s to say it won’t be quietly slipped in at some point?

Remember as well, these profiles are combined, and only then anonymized. However, the more information in the profile, the easier it would be for researchers to reverse engineer the anonymizing techniques to restore identities. In fact, it’s quite possible that the algorithm and techniques will be readily available.

Remember, StatsCan allows people to order individual files for free. It you want a full 1-year subscription, it costs a mere $5,000. If you are interested in real data mining, it’s pocket change.

11. Shopify & Blackberry Develop App

Canada will launch a nationwide contact tracing app using the Apple-Google Exposure Notification framework, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday.

The Apple-Google Exposure Notification API exited beta in May. It allows public health authorities to build deeply integrated, cross-platform contact tracing apps to track and curb the spread of coronavirus.

The Canadian app was developed by Shopify, BlackBerry and the government of Ontario. As is required by Apple and Google, the app will be completely voluntary, will only store data in a decentralized manner and will be led by the Canadian Digital Service Initiative, iPhoneInCanada reported.

Blackberry and Shopify developed the app for use in Canada. Companies like Google are well known for obtaining huge amounts of data on their users so this is a huge red flag. How do we know there isn’t some sort of back door built into the platform?

By contrast, a few countries, like Norway, have banned such an app, out of privacy concerns.

12. Government Already Compiles The Info

As seen in earlier sections, StatsCan already combines sources to build “more complete” profiles of the people it wants to survey. Even your credit isn’t safe if StatsCan wants it. As for the finished project, the information can be bought, and individual files requested for free. How difficult would it be to take the raw data provided, and cross reference across other social media or other databases? How long until the original names are restored to the profiles?

With all this data compilation, it won’t be difficult to link a positive test to a real name, an address, or a date of birth. The suggestion that all of this will remain completely anonymous flies in the face of what the government and StatsCan do.

It also isn’t much of a stretch to see the “anonymized” results sold or given to third parties to conduct their own research. Stay away from the app would be some good advice. It would be nice to just take at face value the claims that there are no privacy issues. However, that’s very naïve.

Again, this is not meant to send people into a panic, but much more has to be known and discussed to make such an app a real solution, if it is at all.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress