Human Rights Archives - Page 23 of 73

October 4, 2021October 4, 2021

Canadian Pharmacists Association: Campaigning At Taxpayer Expense To Grow Big Drug Industry

The Canadian Pharmacists Association has received money from the CEWS Program, which is the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Now, it doesn’t say how much, but that information is available elsewhere. According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, the CPA has received $191,387.49 from the Canada Revenue Agency. This group is expected to receive more in 2021. Now, as most people know, the CEWS is run by the CRA, so it’s fair to assume that the bulk (or all) or it is from CEWS.

Now, another group getting taxpayer subsidies is hardly news worthy. That being said, what the CPA is pushing for is definitely worth talking about.

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT: Amending the CDSA to add pharmacists as practitioners (Opioids)
-Pre-budget consultation: Federal investments to improve the health care system and the health of Canadians
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Regulation

The Cannabis Act, with respect to the medical cannabis regime and the role of pharmacists in dispensing and managing medical cannabis.

Policies or Program
-Distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccinations
-Health Canada — Emergency Preparedness/Pandemic Planning with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Health Canada — Error reporting by community pharmacy into the the Canadian Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention System (CMIRPS)
-Health Canada — First Nations and Inuit Health – Non-Insured Health Benefits program (NIHB) with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Health Canada — Foreign Credential recognition Program, Health Canada Health Human Resources (HHR) Strategy – working with the department to understand the entry of foreign-trained pharmacists to Canada
-Health Canada — Post-market surveillance of pharmaceutical products with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Finance Canada, Health Canada – Prescription drug cost containment strategies with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Supports and resources for pharmacists and health care practitioners in response to COVID-19.
-The implementation of pharmacare in Canada, with respect to the practice of pharmacy and the role of pharmacists in pharmacare

Policies or Program, Regulation
-Health Canada — Working with Health Canada to implement measures to respond to national drug shortages, and responding to US proposals on importation
-Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Finance Canada, Health Canada — E-health / electronic health records policy with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy

Regulation
-Health Canada – COVID-19 and the role of pharmacists in administering COVID-19 vaccinations
-Health Canada – Influenza vaccination and the role of pharmacists in administering flu vaccines in 2020

Something few know about, the CPA has long been a proponent of medical marijuana, and has also supported its legalization. The reasoning is simple: weed is a commodity from which money can be made.

A noteworthy item is that the CPA is pushing to make it easier to bring foreign trained pharmacists to Canada. Like with most professions, if you increase the supply, it ultimately drives down wages. And it’s not like have an abundance of university graduates who struggle to find well paid work.

For reference, here is what the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act currently says. It also explicitly defines a “practitioner” for the purpose of being exempt from punishment.

practitioner means a person who is registered and entitled under the laws of a province to practise in that province the profession of medicine, dentistry or veterinary medicine, and includes any other person or class of persons prescribed as a practitioner; (praticien)

If the CPA were to get its way, pharmacists would be able to prescribe, or at least renew prescriptions for things like opiods.

Back in August, the CPA sent out a media release that some 2,000 pharmacies were ready to provide rapid testing kits in various Provinces across Canada. Now, was this done with public safety in mind, or were they simply trying to push a very profitable product onto the market?

The CPA also weighed in on the recent Federal election. Presumably, they support electing candidates who will promise some or all of the following:

COVID testing: Creating a national testing strategy in parallel with Canada’s vaccine program that will provide Canadians with broad access to at-home rapid COVID-19 tests.
Opioids: Amending federal regulations to enable pharmacists to provide safe opioid-related care to patients by making the CDSA exemptions permanent and enhancing access to safe supply.
Indigenous health: Improving access to key health services through the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program.
Pharmacare: Implementing a universal national pharmacare plan that features a blend of public and private plans.
Drug shortages: Addressing drug shortages by reducing the frequency of shortages and supporting health professionals in managing those that do occur.

Yeah, there’s no conflict of interest here at all.

Also, the CPA has spoken out about Ivermectin. They claim lack of proof that it works, and risks of side effects. Strangely, there seemed to be no objections over vaccines, and over the same issues. Now, there is also no proof this “virus” exists, but that has been covered elsewhere.

The CPA claims to have thousands of sponsors and industry partners, but doesn’t seem to actually name them. However, we can probably guess a lot of the names.

If one wants to be a “Gold Sponsor”, all it costs is $10,000. Seems pretty cheap, doesn’t it. As for the politicians that they gain access to (in Ottawa), this is quite the list.

Anyhow, this is what we have: a trade association lobbying for laws to grow their market. At the same time, the taxpayers are footing the bill to keep the lights on for them. One would think that Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca would be able to fund that.

(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=2&regId=914369
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/fulltext.html
(4) https://www.pharmacists.ca/
(5) https://www.pharmacists.ca/news-events/news/more-than-2000-pharmacies-ready-to-provide-rapid-covid-19-tests-to-small-and-medium-employers-in-alberta-saskatchewan-manitoba-and-ontario/
(6) https://www.pharmacists.ca/industry-partners/sponsorships-affiliates/
(7) https://www.pharmacists.ca/industry-partners/
(8) CPA Lobbying In Ottawa

OTHER LOBBYING BY BIG PHARMA IN CANADA

September 30, 2021

Indemnified Manufacturers: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

This will be a short article, and briefly cover one case: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII). It dealt with a lawsuit against drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, and whether they were liable for their products. The point is that the ruling very closely parallels what’s happening now.

To sum it up: no one is responsible for maiming or killing people with experimental drugs. The buck gets passed and passed, so no one has to face it.

Of course, this is of no comfort to people who have lost loved ones. It’s sickening to see that the rules are stacked against the average person.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

The point of this: GlaxoSmithKline was indemnified from any liabilities that their “interim authorized” vaccines might have led to. Guess they don’t really stand behind their work. Does any of this sound familiar?

Does the lack of transparency also sound familiar?

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

[39] Ms. Hyacenth says that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit did not advise her of these risks. Although Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit was originally a defendant in the action, the plaintiffs released her from the action after being unable to find an expert who would opine that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit breached her standard of care in administering the vaccine.

It gets interesting since there is in fact no agreement between the drug manufacturer and the patient. By this logic, GlaxoSmithKline wouldn’t be liable even without the indemnification agreement.

Even worse, the “learned intermediary”, the physician, isn’t really responsible either, since they were just following the advice of Health Canada. Remember, it doesn’t matter what your doctors are saying, because they are not responsible for whatever happens to you.

As for Government Officials (such as the Health Minister), they aren’t responsible either. As long as they claim these decisions are made for the good of society, they are pretty much untouchable as well.

Read the entire decision. The case is enlightening, for a few different reasons. If you think you have recourse if a loved one dies or gets seriously injured, think again.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc7066/2019onsc7066.html
(2) Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019 ONSC 7066

September 29, 2021

Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity (C2PA), Project Origin, Content Authenticity Initiative

The “Content Authenticity Initiative” claims to be setting the standard for digital content attribution. There are a few groups that seem to be working together to promote this. The CAI …. sounds a bit like CIA, doesn’t it?

The major goals involve being able to instantly and accurately trace a piece of media to its source. Photographs, images, videos, words, and other elements are to be encoded, and be able to get tracked. Welcome to Project Origin.

While this is sold as some sort of trust in media, there is another, more disturbing way to look at things. Will this not also directly connect people to things that are shared online? Won’t it mean the end to anonymous sharing of important information? Will it now become easier to track people for their thoughtcrimes?

1.2 Background At Adobe MAX 2019, the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) was announced by Adobe in partnership with The New York Times Company and Twitter. Since that time, this group has collaborated with a wide set of representatives from commercial organizations (software tools, publishers, social media), human rights organizations and academic research to produce this paper and the approach it describes.

5.1.3 Establishing Trust One key component in establishing trust in the CAI system comes from the entities whose certificates are used for signing the claim. To ensure that only assets signed by trusted actors can be considered properly attributed, it is necessary to create a list of trusted certificates or their certification authorities (CAs). Similar to the EU Trust List, the Adobe Approved Trust List, and similar lists used by web browsers and operating systems, the members of the CAI will establish their own Trust List of certificates that can be used to sign claims. Details on the governance of the Trust List is outside the scope of this paper. In many cases, the holder of the certificate will not the individual who created (or edited) an asset, but instead will be the entity responsible for the hardware or software that they used. The signing certificate belongs to the actor (e.g. Truepic Camera, Adobe Photoshop, BBC, etc.) that performed the actions on behalf of someone else. This model allows CAI to provide anonymity (and/or pseudonymity) where desired. For scenarios where the certificate holder is able to reliably establish the identity of the individual, and the individual wishes their identity associated with an asset, an identity assertion is used.

5.1.4 Identity One of the assertion types that can be present in a claim is Identity. This digital identity (also sometimes referred to as a Subject or an Entity) is present when an individual (or organization) is making a clear statement about their association with this claim. Digital identity fundamentally requires digital identifiers — strings or tokens that are unique within a given scope (globally or locally within a specific domain, community, directory, application, etc.). In order to support a variety of use cases, including those where identity might be anonymous or pseudonymous, it is important that various schemes for the identifiers are available for use. Fortunately, most common identity formats such as Decentralized Identifiers-DID, WebIDs, OpenID, ORCiD and others are all based on URIs. This enables an identity assertion to be expressed in the standard format described in RFC 3986.

5.1.6 Redaction of Assertions: In many workflows, there is a need for assertions to be removed by subsequent processes, either because publishing the assertion would be problematic (e.g. the identity of the person who captured a video) or the assertion is no longer valid (e.g. an earlier thumbnail showing something that has since been cropped out). The CAI allows for the redaction of these assertions in a verifiable way that is also part of the provenance of the asset. In the process of redacting an assertion, a record that something was removed is added to the claim. Because each assertion’s reference includes the assertion type, it is clear what type of information (eg. thumbnail, location, etc.) was removed. This enables both humans and machines to apply rules to determine if the removal is acceptable. NOTE: Assertion redacted only applies to assertions that are part of the CAI data. It does not have anything to do with removal of other metadata (XMP, EXIF, etc.).

9 Conclusion: The collaborators on this paper have explored the challenges of inauthentic media through problem definition, system design and use case research. The results of the exploration are expressed in the design of the CAI provenance system. To achieve widespread adoption we have based the design on existing standards and established techniques, and acknowledge that the system will need to include simple and intuitive user experiences. However, even an optimally designed system cannot ultimately succeed in a vacuum. We now begin the important work of deeper, more expansive collaboration with leaders in technology, media, academia, advocacy and other disciplines. With this first step towards an industry standard for digital content attribution, we look optimistically to a future with more trust and transparency in media.

The CAI white paper is certainly worth a read.

Microsoft and the BBC explain Project Origin in their own words. It all sounds so harmless, doesn’t it? It’s all about ensuring that people can trust what they observe in the media is accurate and reliable. Who could possibly disagree with that?

This “coalition” claims to be interested in being able to authenticate media images, videos, and bits of data to identify where it came from. If one was to work in a a vacuum, this sounds completely reasonable and well intentioned.

However, what all too often gets left out of the equation is the rampant corruption, collusion, and financial interests pushing certain narratives. Authenticating photos, while ignoring the bias and fake narratives leaves out the bigger picture. No way is this done by accident.

Have a look through some of the articles at the bottom. These are the bigger issues that so often get (unsurprisingly) ignored. Hard to have an independent media when they are all on the public dole. Even harder when political operatives work within many of them.

But hey, things like a global vaccine passport, are just crazy conspiracy theories, right? Just like the Vaccine Credential Initiative, or the ID2020 Project.

IMPORTANT LINKS:
(1) https://c2pa.org/
(2) https://c2pa.org/about/charter/
(3) https://contentauthenticity.org/
(4) https://www.originproject.info/
(5) https://c2pa.org/about/resources/
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W3Om9Xbj2k
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(8) Content Authenticity Initiative WhitePaper

September 8, 2021September 8, 2021

Rockefeller; WEF; The Commons Project; CommonTrust Network; Health Passes

The Commons Project Foundation (CPF), and the World Economic Forum (WEF), are collaborating to run this so-called CommonTrust Network, and some other initiatives. There are many other partners as well. Now, we know (roughly) who Klaus Schwab and the WEF are. But who exactly is behind the CPF, and who finances it?

According to its own website, the Commons Project Foundation is a non-profit public trust established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation. It claims to have a mission of “build[ing] and operat[ing] digital platforms and services for the common good”. That sounds lovely, although we may have different ideas of what the common good is.

The Commons Project Foundation is accurate about having non-profit status with the IRS, EIN: 83-3933549. Its 2019 tax information is publicly available.

This is hardly an old organization. The CPF was only founded in 2019, as was its first project, CommonHealth. Later on it developed CommonPass, a data sharing structure, which is set to be used a framework for a global digital vaccine passport. And what a coincidence, 2019. It was launched just in time to save us from a global pandemic.

It’s also prominently listed on the World Economic Forum‘s site. Paul Meyer, the CEO, has quite the interesting biography.

Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, The Commons Project, a non-profit public trust, established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, to build digital services that put people first. CommonHealth is the Android platform that lets people collect and manage their personal health data and share it with the health services, organizations and apps they trust. Began career doing advance work on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Then joined the White House staff as speechwriter. Then Chief Operating Officer, Endeavor. Then joined the International Rescue Committee. Co-founded IPKO which began as a wireless internet provider serving the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. Also co-founded the IPKO Foundation. Then Senior Fellow, Markle Foundation. 2001, co-founded and served as Chief Executive Officer, Voxiva. 2016, merged Voxiva with Sense Health to form Wellpass and served as Wellpass Chief Executive Officer. 2018, Wellpass was acquired by Welltok, served as President of the Public & Community Markets. 2019, co-founded The Commons Project. Member: IPKO Foundation Board; Advisory Board, BlueStar Families. Former Member, U.S. Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. Degree in Law, Yale; BA, Pomona College; studied politics, philosophy and economics, Oxford. Young Global Leader, World Economic Forum. Henry Crown Fellow, Aspen Institute. Term Member, Council on Foreign Relations.

Meyer is very well connected politically, and associated with all of the globalist organizations to ensure that his system is the one that is used.

The Commons Project lists 4 projects that it’s currently involved with:

CommonHealth
CommonPass
CommonTrust Network
SMART Health Read Verifier

CommonHealth appears to be a platform that people can use to download their health information. It’s compatible with systems like iOS and Android. Now it’s being offered for free to individuals — isn’t that nice — but the hope is that health care providers will take it as well.

Considering that this is essentially open source software, one has to wonder how any money is being made in all of this. Perhaps there are some interested donors contributing.

CommonHealth also offers SMART Health Cards, which appear to be a paper or digital version of clinical information. That kind of sounds like the forms that a vaccine passport would take.

CommonPass works in principle much the same way that CommonHealth does. Health information can be downloaded — say to a phone — and taken with a person wherever they go.

This differs in that it’s a way to cross borders (or police checkpoints). In essence, this is “halt and show your papers”. It’s difficult to see how this could be implemented in any consistent manner, unless there was some global system to work from. Then again, this sort of thing has long be decried as a conspiracy theory.

CommonPass explains in broad strokes how these movement licenses are supposed to work. And no, this wasn’t developed recently. Even in 2020 this type of tracking was already being openly advertised.

Also, what happens when the requirements change? First, it was a single vaccine for a cure to this “deadly disease”. Then it was 2 shots to be fully immunized. Now, the discussion is on 3rd shots, boosters, and possibly pills and supplements. Talk about shifting the goalposts.

The CommonTrust Network also has a map of the countries that are already part of it. To be fair, it doesn’t explicitly state if Canada itself if part of it, or just Provinces (like B.C.) within it. So there is a bit of room for interpretation here, but it’s most likely national.

So, Canada is part of the “Common Trust Network“, which its website describes as a growing global network of testing providers, vaccination providers, and public health registries. That’s interesting. Did you know we were part of this? Do you remember voting in any election, or referendum to get involved in this? Yeah, I didn’t either.

Provinces all across Canada are rolling out vaccine passports, and a national one is in the works. Are they all collaborating with the CT Network? What data exactly will they have, and who will have access to it?

Now, the technology wouldn’t be complete without a downloadable app that can go on people’s phones. Apple and Google now have them available. Isn’t that thoughtful of them?

Interestingly, in the last question of the FAQ section, it’s admitted that this platform might eventually be used to store more data.

These are hardly the only examples of NGOs getting to close for comfort, or meddling in public affairs. Addition to the above, a lot of these same organizations keep getting involved in interrelated efforts. A few examples of this are:

The Rockefeller Foundation is one of the founding partners of ID2020, along with Microsoft and GAVI. This group was formed in 2016, with the goal of creating a digital identity for everyone. Also, Mastercard is both a general partner of ID2020, and the Common Trust Network.
The Rockefeller Foundation has also been a major donor to the University of Toronto, and help launch public health at that school. Something rarely discussed in the halls of academia is where the money comes from.
As previously mentioned on this site, the Vaccine Credential Initiative is working to set universal standards for vaccine passports. Microsoft is involved, as is the Ontario Ministry of Health, and many of the other partners in the Common Trust Network.
Back in 2019, MIT had looked into the concept of storing medical data below the skin, sort of like a tattoo.
Also, is it a bad time to mention that Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister, is a Trustee at the World Economic Forum? So are many prominent names

It’s mind boggling to know that the vast majority of people in the world don’t get it. They don’t realize that all of this is planned and coordinated. The The ones doing this don’t even bother to hide it — they throw it in our faces.

(1) https://thecommonsproject.org/
(2) https://thecommonsproject.org/about
(3) https://thecommonsproject.org/commonhealth
(4) https://www.weforum.org/organizations/commons-project
(5) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/paul-meyer
(6) https://www.commonhealth.org/
(7) https://www.commonhealth.org/smart-health-cards
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oAI14DOUQM&
(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJGYNvNUMJk
(10) https://thecommonsproject.org/commonpass
(11) https://www.commontrustnetwork.org/
(12) https://www.commontrustnetwork.org/network
(13) https://thecommonsproject.org/smart-health-card-verifier
(14) https://smarthealth.cards/faq.html
(15) https://id2020.org/alliance
(16) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-credential-initiative-passports-digital-health-passes-ontario-ford/
(18) https://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
(19) https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance
(20) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(21) Commons Project Foundation 2019 Taxes
(22) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/vaccinecard.html

September 6, 2021October 28, 2022

TSCE #9(F)(2): 2021 Parliamentary Hearings On Pornhub, CSAM, Digital Fingerprinting, Databases

When the issues of internet privacy and child protection intersect, sorting things out can be fairly tricky. It was only a decade ago when “Conservative” Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, decided that having basic protections of browsing history amounted to coddling pedophiles. Nonetheless, these concerns don’t go away just because someone else is now in office.

Now, it’s the group Pornhub that is under the public spotlight. It is just one such site owned by MindGeek. The porno empire of MindGeek includes (but isn’t limited to):

Pornhub
RedTube
YouPorn
Brazzers
Digital Playground
Men.com
Reality Kings
Sean Cody
WhyNotBi.com

Allegations have come up that actual sexual abuse as been published on this site, as well as revenge porn, and videos featuring minors. All of that is illegal. As for the hearings:

The above videos are clipped from the this hearing. The transcript of that day’s hearing is available here.

From January to June 2021, there were Parliamentary hearings held in Ottawa based on what was happened with Pornhub. It turned out that a very large amount of their content involved non-consenting parties, or minors, or both. After an outrage in December 2020, and threatened with the loss of payment processors like Visa and Mastercard, there was some serious damage control.

To be clear, the whole pornography uploading industry is disgusting. This is especially true as it’s fairly easy to allow content of minors to be included, and non-consensual content as well. That being said, the hearings were interesting, but for additional reasons.

One notable topic was the level of software available to scan images and videos, to implement “digital fingerprinting”, and to collaborate with other social media sites. Furthermore, Mindgeek explained they knew exactly who is uploading to their site, and where it’s happening from.

(February 5, 2021, 13:05)
.
We are also working to ensure that once content is removed, it can never make its way back to our platform or to any platform. The revictimization of individuals when their content is re-uploaded causes profound injury that we are working fiercely to prevent. We are attacking this problem in two ways. First, our people are trained to remove such material upon request. Second, we digitally fingerprint any content removed from our website so that it cannot be re-uploaded to our own platform.
.
For the last two years, we have been building a tool called “SafeGuard” to help fight the distribution of non-consensual intimate images. As I sit before you today, I am pleased to report that this month we will be implementing SafeGuard for all videos uploaded to Pornhub. We will offer SafeGuard for free to our non-adult peers, including Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. We are optimistic that all major social media platforms will implement SafeGuard and contribute to its fingerprint database. Such co-operation will be a major step to limit the spread of non-consensual material on the Internet.

(February 5, 2021, 13:10)
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
How do you know?
.
Mr. Feras Antoon:
It’s because every single piece of content is viewed by our human moderators. Number two, it goes through software that we have licensed from YouTube, like CSAI Match, and from Microsoft, like PhotoDNA for pictures. It goes through a software called Vobile.
.
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
But then why, for example, do Pornhub’s terms of service say, “we sometimes review Content submitted or contributed by users”?
.
Mr. David Tassillo (Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada):
Mrs. Stubbs, I would like to add to what Feras mentioned.
I’m not too sure where it says that in the terms of service, but I can guarantee you that every piece of content, before it’s actually made available on the website, goes through several different filters, some of which my colleague made reference to.
.
Depending on whether it comes up as a photo or as a video, we go through different pieces of software that would compare it to known active cases of CSAM, so we’ll actually do a hash check. We actually don’t send the content itself over; they create a digital key per se that’s compared to a known active database. After that, it’s compared to the other piece of software that Feras mentioned, Vobile, which is a fingerprinting software by which anyone can have their content fingerprinted. Any time MindGeek would find the piece of infringing content, we’d add it to that database to prevent the re-upload.
.
Once it passes the software queue…. If anything fails at the software level, it automatically doesn’t make it up to the site. Once that piece has gone through, we move over to the human moderation section. The human moderators will watch each one of the videos, and if they deem that the video passes, it will be—

Essentially, all of the material, whether uploaded or not, will become part of a huge database. Who will have access to it, and for what reasons could content be released?

And software is used, including stuff provided by YouTube and Microsoft. Will they have access to it? Can the material be stored somewhere else?

The Adult Industry Laborers and Artists Association wrote to Parliament, essentially arguing that the porn industry was better at regulating itself than the Government. Also, it was a large sector of the economy which people relied on to provide for their families.

The Sex Workers of Winnipeg Action Coalition actually wrote to Parliament advising AGAINST mandatory identification for using and uploading onto such sites. They argue that it’s too easy to compile and save the data to be used to nefarious purposes (and cite Clearview AI). In terms of material uploaded without consent, they actually have a point.

The Free Speech Coalition wrote to the hearing and recommended working with sites like Pornhub. They claim that illicit material will just be shared elsewhere if this were shut down.

In MindGeek’s written submissions, they spelled out — at least broadly — the technical tools they had to combat illicit material and keep it from being shared:

Our human moderators are supported by a growing suite of technical tools, which fall into two broad categories: those that detect previously identified CSAM and non-consensual content using a fingerprint technology and those that use artificial intelligence to detect unreported CSAM content.

MindGeek’s fingerprinting tools rely on a unique digital fingerprint to match a video or photograph to those already identified in a database of banned content. These tools include YouTube’s CASI Match, Microsoft’s Photo DNA, Vobile’s MediaWise, and MindGeek’s own SafeGuard. All items caught by these tools as CSAM or non-consensual are immediately blocked from the website and handled by our second level review team.

That’s quite the list of electronic tools. And keep in mind, Pornhub knows exactly who the people are uploading to their site. How exactly would this artificial intelligence work, and what would it be programmed to look for?

The Parliamentary Report has also been issued on this subject. Now, this smut shouldn’t be around at all. However, if it can’t be removed, these are some decent recommendations to help the problem somewhat.

Recommendation 1 concerning liability
That the Government of Canada explore means to hold online platforms liable for any failure to prevent the upload of, or ensure the timely deletion of child sexual abuse material, content depicting non-consensual activity, and any other content uploaded without the knowledge or consent of all parties, including enacting a duty of care, along with financial penalties for non-compliance or failure to fulfil a required duty of care.

Recommendation 2 concerning the duty to verify age and consent
That the Government of Canada mandate that content-hosting platforms operating in Canada require affirmation from all persons depicted in pornographic content, before it can be uploaded, that they are 18 years old or older and that they consent to its distribution, and that it consult with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada with respect to the implementation of such obligation.

Recommendation 3 concerning consultation
That the Government of Canada consult with survivors, child advocacy centres, victim support agencies, law enforcement, web platforms and sex workers prior to enacting any legislation or regulations relating to the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms.

Recommendation 4 concerning section 3 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, amend section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to make the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre the designated law enforcement agency for the purpose of reporting under that section and that it ensure that the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre has the resources it needs to investigate the increased referrals of child sexual abuse materials

Recommendation 5 concerning reporting obligations
That the Government of Canada invest resources to ensure the compliance of access providers, content providers and Internet content hosting services with their reporting obligations under An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service through education and awareness initiatives.

Recommendation 6 concerning section 11 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada consider amending section 11 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to extend the period of time to commence prosecution for an offence under this Act.

Recommendation 7 regarding compliance under the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada call upon the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police services to ensure the compliance of Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, with their reporting obligations under that Act, and that compliance be absolute with no means for providers to opt out

Recommendation 8 concerning requirements for uploaders of content
That the Government of Canada set requirements for uploaders of content to provide proof of valid consent of all persons depicted and that the new regulations include penalties severe enough to act as an effective deterrent.

Recommendation 9 regarding pornographic content and age verification
That the Government of Canada develop clear regulations that require Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, to utilize a robust process for age verification of all individuals in uploaded pornographic content, including content generated by individuals, studios or contract partners.

Recommendation 10 concerning proactive enforcement of Canadian laws
That the Government of Canada proactively enforce all Canadian laws regarding child sexual abuse material and the posting of non-consensual material and that in particular, it enforce section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service by requiring all Internet service providers, as defined in the Act, to report child sexual abuse material directly to an officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

Recommendation 11 concerning accessible mechanisms for the removal of online content
That the Government of Canada develop accessible mechanisms that ensure that Canadians victimized by the posting of an image or video online without their consent on sites like Pornhub have the right to have that content removed immediately and to be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to the non-consensual nature of the content, and that the Government of Canada provide all the necessary resources required to put in place these accessible mechanisms.

Recommendation 12 concerning a potential new pattern of sexual violence
That the Government of Canada work with key stakeholder groups such as Canadian sexual assault centres, women’s rights organizations and representatives from LGBTQ2 communities to determine if the posting of non-consensual material depicting sexual violence on sites like Pornhub is reflective of, and contributing to, a new pattern of sexual violence, and that it report its findings, including recommendations for further action, to Parliament.

Recommendation 13 concerning the accountability of websites regarding the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content
That the Government of Canada hold accountable websites that allow the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content that erases the identity of the source material, thereby preventing authorities from assessing those accountable for the material.

Recommendation 14 concerning a new legal framework to impose certain obligations on Internet service providers hosting pornographic content
That the Government of Canada create a legal framework that would compel Internet service providers that host pornographic content to:
• implement and use available tools to combat the flagrant and relentless re-uploading of illegal content;
• hire, train and effectively supervise staff to carry out moderation and content removal tasks at an appropriate scale;
• maintain detailed records of user reports and responses that can be audited by authorities;
• be legally accountable for content moderation and removal decisions and the harm to individuals that results when efforts are inadequate; and
• build in and design features that prioritize the best interests and privacy rights of children and vulnerable adults

Admittedly, these are some good proposals. Will anything come of these hearings when the next Parliament sits? I guess we will have to wait and see in the new session.

Again, this is not defend this disgusting industry. However, even with safeguards, there are still plenty of children and non-consenting people who are victimized here. It’s not much of a consolation to say that “it will just go elsewhere” if these sites are shut down.

Even for young adults, what happens in 5 or 10 years when they grow up and realize they’ve made a serious mistake? How easy (or possible) will it be to get this information scrubbed?

September 6, 2021

Updated Vaccine Product Inserts STILL Show Lack Of Critical Testing: Pregnancy; New Mothers; Children

The interim authorized (not approved) so-called “vaccines” in Canada have had some updates to their product inserts. However, the same concerns remain. Even though new side effects are being listed, the emergency authorization still allows these to be distributed.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

And it’s also worth a reminder that the manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. Therefore, if this screws up or kills people, the creators are off the hook complete.