• Txa’nii Watsmen Sm’wa̱’ayin.
      Akadit łooda na laxyuubm

      T’ilgooti, ‘ap luk’wil ‘wah ‘nts’iitst
      Awil akadit łooda ła ‘wiileeksit

      Ałkadi sgüüł gabilah da k’am
      Da’al dm gwelgm mashmallows
      ’Nüün int ’wah ts’muun
      Ndo’o yaan, gyiloo ts’iks yaan

      Laandza dip g̱olda na waaba gwa̱soo, dm g̱olda na waaba gwa̱soo

      La storia e le vicende dei nativi canadesi sono meno note di quelle dei loro omologhi statunitensi, ma non meno tragiche, piene come sono di episodi di violenza, sopraffazione, discriminazione fisica e culturale. E se sono passati più di 150 anni dalla dichiarazione/auspicio che a metà Ottocento fece l’allora Primo Ministro canadese John A. Macdonald: “uccidere gli indiani da bambini”, fino a tempi assai recenti la cultura e la memoria dei popoli indigeni sono state sottoposte ad una costante opera di distruzione e marginalizzazione. Nel cercare di imporre i propri modelli socio-economico-culturali, il Canada “bianco” non si è peraltro fatto scrupolo di vietare le cerimonie tradizionali, di reprimere le manifestazioni che rivendicavano i diritti dei nativi sulla terra e sull’utilizzo delle risorse naturali, arrivando perfino a sottrarre i bambini indigeni alle famiglie, per crescerli secondo i propri canoni. Naturalmente questo processo di eradicazione culturale ha interessato anche le lingue delle nazioni indiane, lingue in alcuni casi più antiche del greco di Omero. Fortunatamente però i poco nobili sforzi dei “bianchi” non hanno ottenuto il completo annichilimento della cultura nativa. Ciò anche grazie a persone come Jeremy Pahl, archivista e insegnante di sm’algyax (la lingua della comunità Ts’msyen della British Columbia), ma anche, con il nome d’arte di Hank Saltwater, cantautore, chitarrista e violinista. “G̱al’üünx wil lu Holtga Liimi”, sua ultima opera, è un album tonico ed energetico, in cui Saltwater compie un’operazione inversa rispetto a quella di altri musicisti operanti al confine tra la musica di tradizione e quella d’autore. Egli infatti compone e canta nella lingua sm’algyax, ma adotta stili e generi musicali che usualmente non si associano ai nativi americani. In questo senso il suo primo riferimento è il country, ma le sue canzoni sono anche innervate dal rock, venate di blues, e chiaramente influenzate dai grandi songwriter, primo fra tutti Neil Young. In questo modo Saltwater afferma e dimostra che la cultura indigena è viva, vitale, e che è possibile creare canzoni nelle lingue native facendo proprie forme musicali lontane da quelle tradizionali, in un atteggiamento che, sostiene Pahl/Saltwater, in fondo è quello che gli Ts’msyen hanno sempre assunto in risposta alla colonizzazione.

      #musique #peuples_autochtones #Canada #chanson #sm’algyax #Ts’msyen #British_Columbia #Hank_Saltwater

    • #Roberto_Mozzachiodi, UK

      SOLIDARITY WITH ROBERTO MOZZACHIODI

      After years of unparalleled academic and political work at Goldsmiths, our colleague, friend, teacher, caseworker, union branch co-Secretary #Roberto_Mozzachiodi has been put through an unfair employment process, and as a result no longer holds a substantive teaching position at the College. Roberto’s case reflects the working conditions of hundreds of staff at Goldsmiths, and thousands of staff employed on precarious, fixed-term, temporary contracts across British Higher Education. It also reflects the risks that come with openly committing to collective, ground-up solidarity that challenges the principles of how university work is organised, and reimagines union work accordingly.

      Roberto has been a leading figure in the fight against casualisation at Goldsmiths, and has been at the heart of campaigns that have radically transformed our place of work and study. He was core in the Goldsmiths #Justice_for_Cleaners and Goldsmiths #Justice_for_Workers movements that brought cleaning and security staff in-house, and core in the fight to extend basic rights to casualised workers at Goldsmiths at the height of the pandemic. He has supported countless staff and students through the grinding labour of union casework, and has worked tirelessly on strengthening and transforming the Goldsmiths branch of UCU through a radical commitment to anti-casualisation, anti-racism, and anti-factionalism, often fighting and organising for the rights of others in far more secure positions.

      Roberto’s specific case mirrors that of thousands across the country employed on temporary, fixed-term, and casualised contracts. Roberto was denied his redundancy-related employment rights when his contract came to an end. This involved, amongst other things, not being consulted on suitable alternative employment, including a permanent position very similar to the role he had been performing on a fixed-term basis over three terms. This amounts to a denial of casualised workers’ employment rights, and is something that is commonplace at Goldsmiths, and across the sector.

      As signatories of this letter, we call on Goldsmiths to act on the unjust treatment of Roberto. We also urge all at Goldsmiths and beyond to actively resist and challenge the endemic nature of precarious work in university life - at all times and at all scales, as Roberto has always done.

      Signed,

      Alice Elliot, Lecturer, Goldsmiths University of London
      Victoria Chwa, President, Goldsmiths Students’ Union
      Alicia Suriel Melchor, Operations Assistant, Forensic Architecture / Goldsmiths.
      Vicky Blake, UCU NEC, former president & Uni of Leeds UCU officer, former Chair of UCU Anti-Casualisation Committee
      Cecilia Wee, Associate Lecturer, Royal College of Art & co-Chair/co-Equalities RCA UCU branch
      Joe Newman, Lecturer, Goldsmiths, University of London
      James Eastwood, Co-Chair, Queen Mary UCU
      S Joss, HW UCU Branch President
      Rehana Zaman, Lecturer Art Department, Goldsmiths University of London
      Marina Baldissera Pacchetti, anti-cas officer, Leeds UCU
      Sam Morecroft, USIC UCU Branch President and UCU Anti Casualisation Committee
      Kyran Joughin, Anti-Casualisation Officer, UCU London Region Executive Committee, UCU NEC Member, former Branch Secretary, UCU-UAL
      Rhian Elinor Keyse, Postdoctoral Research Fellow; Birkbeck UCU Branch Secretary; UCU Anti-Casualisation Committee; UCU NEC
      Joanne Tatham, Reader, Royal College of Art and RCA UCU branch committee member, London
      Bianca Griffani, PhD candidate, Goldsmiths University of London, London
      Paola Debellis, PhD student, Goldsmiths, University of London.
      Ashok Kumar, Senior Lecturer, Birkbeck, University of London
      Chrys Papaioannou, Birkbeck UCU
      Fergal Hanna, PhD Student, University of Cambridge, UCU Anti-Casualisation Committee and Cambridge UCU Executive Committee member
      Robert Deakin, Research Assistant, Goldsmiths, University of London
      Grace Tillyard, ESRC postdoctoral fellow, MCCS Goldsmiths
      Yari Lanci, Associate Lecturer, Goldsmiths University of London.
      Caleb Day, Postgraduate researcher, Foundation tutor and UCU Anti-Casualisation Officer, Durham University
      Rachel Wilson, PhD Candidate, Goldsmiths University of London
      Sean Wallis, Branch President, UCL UCU, and NEC member
      Yaiza Hernández Velázquez, Lecturer, Visual Cultures, Goldsmiths.
      Akanksha Mehta, Lecturer, Goldsmiths, University of London
      Cathy Nugent, PhD Candidate, Goldsmiths, University of London
      Janna Graham, Lecturer Visual Cultures, Goldsmiths
      Isobel Harbison, Art Department, Goldsmiths
      Susan Kelly, Art Department, Goldsmiths
      Jessa Mockridge, Library, Goldsmiths
      Vincent Møystad, Associate Lecturer, MCCS, Goldsmiths
      Dhanveer Singh Brar, Lecturer, School of History, University of Leeds
      James Burton, Senior Lecturer, MCCS, Goldsmiths
      Louis Moreno, Lecturer, Goldsmiths
      Jennifer Warren, Visiting Lecturer, Goldsmiths MCCS
      Anthony Faramelli, Lecturer, Visual Cultures, Goldsmiths, University of London
      Billy Godfrey, Doctoral Researcher, Loughborough University; GTA, University of Manchester
      Fabiana Palladino, Associate Lecturer, Goldsmiths, University of London
      Morgan Rhys Powell, Doctoral Researcher and GTA; University of Manchester
      Tom Cowin, Anti-Casualisation Officer, Sussex UCU
      Conrad Moriarty-Cole, Lecturer, University of Brighton, and former PhD student at Goldsmiths College
      Marina Vishmidt, MCCS Lecturer, Goldsmiths University of London
      George Briley, Universities of London Branch Secretary, IWGB
      Callum Cant, Postdoctoral Researcher, Oxford Internet Institute
      Daniel C. Blight, Lecturer, University of Brighton
      Marion Lieutaud, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, LSE UCU anti-casualisation co-officer, London School of Economics
      Lukas Slothuus, LSE Fellow, LSE UCU anti-casualisation co-officer, London School of Economics
      Matthew Lee, UCL Unison Steward & IWGB Universities of London Representative
      Jamie Woodcock, University of Essex
      Dylan Carver, Anti-Casualisation Officer, University of Oxford
      Annie Goh, Lecturer, LCC UAL
      George Mather, PGR Anti-Casualisation Officer, University of Oxford
      Zara Dinnen, Branch co-chair QMUCU
      Henry Chango Lopez - IWGB Union, General Secretary
      Rhiannon Lockley - Branch Chair Birmingham City University UCU; UCU NEC
      Sol Gamsu, Branch President, Durham University UCU
      Ben Ralph, Branch President, University of Bath UCU
      Myka Tucker-Abramson, University of Warwick UCU
      Lisa Tilley, SOAS UCU
      James Brackley, Lecturer in Accounting, University of Sheffield
      Alex Fairfax-Cholmeley, Communications Officer, Uni of Exeter UCU
      Ioana Cerasella Chis, University of Birmingham (incoming branch officer)
      Muireann Crowley, University of Edinburgh, UCU Edinburgh
      Jonny Jones, associate lecturer, UCL
      Danai Avgeri, University of Cambridge, postdoctoral fellow
      Stefano Cremonesi, Durham University UCU
      Jordan Osserman, Lecturer, Essex UCU Member Secretary
      Danny Millum, Librarian, Sussex UCU Exec Member
      Sanaz Raji, ISRF Fellow, Northumbria University, Founder & Caseworker, Unis Resist Border Controls (URBC)
      Alex Brent, GMB South London Universities Branch Secretary
      Gareth Spencer, PCS Culture Group President
      Floyd Codlin, Environmental & Ethics Officer, Birkbeck
      Clare Qualmann, Associate Professor, University of East London and UCU branch treasurer, UEL
      Kevin Biderman, Brighton UCU anti-casualisation officer
      David Morris, CSM / University of the Arts London UCU
      Ryan Burns, Brighton UCU Secretary
      Julie canavan Brighton UCU
      Charlotte Terrell, Postdoc, Oxford UCU
      Clara Paillard, Unite the Union, former President of PCS Union Culture Group
      Jasmine Lota, PCS British Museum United Branch Secretary
      Joe Hayns, RHUL.
      Adam Barr, Birkbeck Unison
      Dario Carugo, Associate Professor, University of Oxford
      Jacob Gracie, KCL Fair Pay for GTAs
      Rahul Patel, UCU London Region Executive and Joint Sec University of the Arts London UCU
      Billy Woods, Essex UCU
      Lucy Mercer, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Exeter
      Goldsmiths Anti-Racist Action (GARA)
      Saumya Ranjan Nath, University of Sussex
      Islam al Khatib, 22/23 Welfare and Liberation Officer, Goldsmiths SU
      Mijke van der Drift, Tutor, Royal College of Art
      Marini Thorne, PHD student and teaching assistant, Columbia University and member of Student Workers of Columbia
      Genevieve Smart, PhD student, Birkbeck
      Francesco Pontarelli, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Johannesburg
      Gloria Lawton, Outreach Homeless Worker, HARP and undergraduate Birkbeck University.
      Grant Buttars, UCU Scotland Vice President
      Goldsmiths Community Solidarity
      Nicola Pratt, Professor, University of Warwick
      Robert Stearn, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Birkbeck, University of London
      Jake Arnfield, UVW Union
      Jarrah O’Neill, Cambridge UCU
      Owen Miller, Lecturer, SOAS
      Marissa Begonia, Director, The Voice of Domestic Workers
      Neda Genova, Research Fellow, University of Warwick
      Joey Whitfield, Cardiff University UCU
      Leila Mimmack, Equity Young Members Councillor
      Ross Gibson, University of Strathclyde
      Phill Wilson-Perkin, co-chair Bectu Art Technicians, London
      Isabelle Tarran, Campaigns and Activities Officer, Goldsmiths Students Union
      Leila Prasad, lecturer, Goldsmiths
      Malcolm James, University of Sussex
      Natalia Cecire, University of Sussex
      Daniel Molto, University of Sussex
      Emma Harrison, University of Sussex
      Margherita Huntley, University of the Arts London (Camberwell UCU)
      Gavin Schwartz-Leeper, Warwick University UCU Co-Chair
      Mary Wrenn, University of the West of England
      Aska Welford (United Voices of the World)
      855 Unterschriften:Nächstes Ziel: 1.000

      https://www.change.org/p/solidarity-with-roberto-mozzachiodi?recruiter=false

      #petition #UK #Goldsmiths #precarity #union_work #British_Higher_Education #fixed_term #UCU

    • #Maria_Toft, Denmark

      In #Denmark #scientists are rolling out a nationwide #petition for a commission to investigate #research_freedom

      –> https://seenthis.net/messages/1009865

      PhD student at the Department of Political Science #Maria_Toft, in addition to the mentioned petition, also started a campaign under the hashtag #pleasedontstealmywork to stop the theft of research.

      –> https://seenthis.net/messages/1009866

      The national conversation about exploitation with #pleasedontstealmywork campaign was at the cost of #Maria_Tofts Copenhagen fellowship.

      –> https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/campaigning-doctoral-candidate-resigns-hostile-environment (access if registered)

      This article assesses the #working_conditions of #precariat_researchers in #Denmark.

      –> https://seenthis.net/messages/1009867

      Twitter link: https://twitter.com/GirrKatja/status/1640636016330432512

    • #Heike_Egner, Austria

      Unterstütze #Heike_Egner für Grundrechte von Profs

      https://youtu.be/6w-deHpsmr4

      Ich sammle Spenden für eine juristische Klärung, die zwar meine Person betrifft, jedoch weitreichende Bedeutung für Professorinnen und Professoren im deutschsprachigen Wissenschaftsbereich hat. Die Entlassung einer Professorin oder eines Professors aus einer (unbefristeten) Professur galt bis vor kurzem noch als undenkbar. Mittlerweile ist das nicht nur möglich, sondern nimmt rasant zu.

      Der Sachverhalt: Ich wurde 2018 als Universitätsprofessorin fristlos entlassen. Für mich kam das aus heiterem Himmel, da es keinerlei Vorwarnung gab. Erst vor Gericht habe ich die Gründe dafür erfahren. Der Vorwurf lautet, ich hätte Mobbing und psychische Gewalt gegen wissenschaftliche Nachwuchskräfte und andere Mitarbeiter ausgeübt. Vor Gericht zeigte sich, dass die Vorwürfe durchwegs auf von mir vorgenommene Leistungsbewertungen basieren, die von den Betreffenden als ungerecht empfunden wurden. Die Bewertung von Leistungen von Studierenden und Nachwuchswissenschaftlern gehört zu den Dienstaufgaben einer Universitätsprofessorin, ebenso wie die Evaluierung von Leistungen der Mitarbeiter jenseits der Qualifikationserfordernisse zu den Dienstaufgaben einer Institutsvorständin an einer Universität gehört.

      Mittlerweile liegt der Fall beim Obersten Gerichtshof in Österreich. Ich habe eine „außerordentliche Revision“ eingereicht, da ich der Meinung bin, dass die Art meiner Entlassung von grundlegender Bedeutung für die Arbeitsbedingungen von Professoren an Universitäten ist. Unter anderem ist folgendes zu klären:

      Darf eine Universitätsprofessorin oder ein Universitätsprofessor aufgrund von anonym vorgetragenen Vorwürfen entlassen werden?
      Darf eine Universitätsprofessorin oder ein Universitätsprofessor aufgrund von ihr oder ihm durchgeführten negativen Leistungsbewertungen entlassen werden?

      Sollte die Berufungsentscheidung rechtskräftig bleiben, ist damit legitimiert, dass eine Professorin oder ein Professor aufgrund von freihändig formulierten und anonym vorgetragenen Behauptungen jederzeit entlassen werden kann. Dies entspricht einer willkürlichen Entlassung und öffnet Missbrauch Tür und Tor, da es Universitäten ermöglicht, sich jederzeit ihrer Professoren zu entledigen. Eine Universität ist aufgrund ihrer Struktur und ihres Auftrags eine grundsätzlich spannungsgeladene Organisation; hier lassen sich jederzeit unzufriedene Studenten, Nachwuchskräfte oder Mitarbeiter finden, die eine Beschwerde äußern. Die Möglichkeit willkürlicher Entlassung steht nicht nur in Konflikt mit den Formulierungen und der Zielsetzung des Arbeitnehmerschutzes, sondern auch mit der in der Verfassung verankerten Freiheit von Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre.

      Wofür bitte ich um Unterstützung?
      Es ist ein ungleicher Kampf, da die Universität Steuergelder in unbegrenzter Höhe zur Verfügung hat und ich – ohne Rechtsschutzversicherung – das volle Risiko des Rechtsstreits persönlich trage. Die bisherigen Kosten des Verfahrens belaufen sich auf etwa 120.000 € (eigene Anwaltskosten und Anwaltskosten der Gegenseite). Damit sind meine Ersparnisse weitgehend aufgebraucht.

      Mein Spendenziel beträgt 80.000 €.
      Dies umfasst die etwa 60.000 € Anwaltskosten der Gegenseite, die ich aufgrund des Urteils in zweiter Instanz zu tragen habe. Die weiteren 20.000 € fließen in die Forschung über die Entlassung von Professorinnen und Professoren, die ich seit 2020 mit einer Kollegin aus privaten Mitteln betreibe.

      Publizierte Forschungsergebnisse zur Entlassung von Professorinnen und Professoren

      Egner, Heike & Anke Uhlenwinkel (2021). Entlassung und öffentliche Degradierung von Professorinnen. Eine empirische Analyse struktureller Gemeinsamkeiten anscheinend unterschiedlicher „Fälle“. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 43(1-2), 62–84. Download PDF
      Egner, Heike & Anke Uhlenwinkel (2021). Zur Rechtsstaatlichkeit universitätsinterner Verfahren bei Entlassung oder öffentlicher Degradierung von Professor*innen. Ordnung der Wissenschaft, 3(3), 173–184. Download PDF
      Egner, Heike & Anke Uhlenwinkel (2023). Über Schwierigkeiten der betriebsrätlichen Vertretung von Professor(innen). Zeitschrift für Hochschulrecht(22), 57–64.
      Egner, Heike & Anke Uhlenwinkel (2023). Zertifikat als Grundrecht? Über Leistungsansprüche und -erwartungen im Kontext struktureller Veränderungen an Universitäten. Hochschulwesen(1+2), 28–43.

      https://www.gofundme.com/f/fur-grundrechte-von-professoren

      Aus dem Video: Rektor hat Betriebsratsvorsitzenden aufgetragen gezielt belastbares Material in Schriftform gegen Heike Enger zu sammeln. Betreibsrat kam Auffroderung bereiwilling nach und sprach gezielt Mitarbeitende an und bat sie aufzuschreiben, worüber sie sich geärgert haben und dies auszuhändigen. Zeuge der Universität hat dieses Vorgehen vor Gericht vorgetragen.

      #academia #university #Austria #Klagenfurt #professor #dismissal #arbitrary #publications #lawsuit #evaluation #scientific_freedom

    • #Susanne_Täuber, Netherlands

      Reinstate #Susanne_Täuber, protect social safety and academic freedom at the RUG

      10 March 2023

      To prof. Jouke de Vries, President, and members of the Board of the University of Groningen,

      We, the undersigned employees and students of the University of Groningen (UG), joined by concerned observers and colleagues at institutions around the world, are appalled at the firing of Dr. Susanne Täuber. The facts of this case are clear: Dr. Täuber was punished for exerting her academic freedom. The same court that allowed the UG to fire her also made it clear that it was the university’s negative reaction to an essay about her experiences of gender discrimination at the university that “seriously disturbed” their work relationship. Alarming details have also been made public about how the university pressured Dr. Täuber to censor future publications, in order to retain her position.

      The protest in front of the Academy Building on 8 March, International Women’s Day, and the continuing press attention and social media outcry, demonstrate that this case has consequences far beyond one university. Firing a scholar who publishes work that is critical of powerful institutions, including the university itself, sets a disturbing precedent for us all. We, the employees and students, ARE the UG, and we refuse to let this act be carried out in our names. We call on the University Board to reinstate Dr. Täuber, without delay, as an associate professor, and to ensure that she is provided with a safe working environment.

      The firing of Dr. Täuber has surfaced structural problems that necessitate immediate action by the University Board and all UG faculties. It is unacceptable that when a “disrupted employment relationship” emerges within a department, the more vulnerable person is fired. This points to a broader pattern at Dutch universities, as evidenced by the YAG Report (2021), the LNVH Report (2019), and other recent cases: in cases of transgressive behavior, Full Professors, Principal Investigators (PIs), and managers are protected, while employees of lower rank, or students, bear the consequences. If we are to continue performing our education and research mission, then this practice must be reformed, and the University of Groningen has an opportunity to lead here. We call on the University Board to work with labor unions, the LNVH, the University Council, and Faculty Councils to design and implement a safe, independent procedure for addressing violations of social safety: one that prioritizes the protection and support of vulnerable parties.

      Internal reforms will help ensure the safety of students and employees, but they will not repair the damage these events have caused to the reputation of the University of Groningen. The termination of a scholar who publishes field-leading research that is critical of academia has triggered doubts among employees, students, and the public about the UG’s commitment to academic freedom. This action is already raising concerns from talented job candidates, and we fear a chilling effect on critical research at the UG and beyond. We call on the University of Groningen, in partnership with the Universities of the Netherlands (UNL), the Ministry of Education, and the labor unions, to enshrine protections for academic freedom in the Collective Labor Agreement.

      Reinstate Dr. Täuber, reform complaint procedures, and establish binding protections for academic freedom. The relationship between the University of Groningen and the people it employs, teaches, and serves has been severely disrupted in the past weeks, but that relationship can be repaired if the Board begins taking these actions today.

      Sincerely,

      References:
      Leidse hoogleraar ging ‘meerdere jaren’ in de fout. (2022, October 25). NRC. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/10/25/leidse-hoogleraar-ging-meerdere-jaren-in-de-fout-a4146291

      LNVH. (2019). Harassment in Dutch academia. Exploring manifestations, facilitating factors, effects and solutions. https://www.lnvh.nl/a-3078/harassment-in-dutch-academia.-exploring-manifestations-facilitating-factors-eff.

      Täuber, S. (2020). Undoing Gender in Academia: Personal Reflections on Equal Opportunity Schemes. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1718–1724. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12516

      Upton, B. (2023, March 8). Court rules Groningen is free to fire critical lecturer. Times Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/court-rules-groningen-free-fire-critical-lecturer

      Veldhuis, P., & Marée, K. (2023, March 8). Groningse universiteit mag kritische docent ontslaan. NRC. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2023/03/08/groningse-universiteit-mag-kritische-docent-ontslaan-a4158914

      Young Academy Groningen. (2021). Harassment at the University of Groningen. https://www.rug.nl/news/2021/10/young-academy-groningen-publishes-report-on-harassment-in-academia

      https://openletter.earth/reinstate-susanne-tauber-protect-social-safety-and-academic-freedom-at

      The article:

      Täuber, S. (2020) ‘Undoing Gender in Academia: Personal Reflections on Equal Opportunity Schemes’, Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), pp. 1718–1724.

      –> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.12516

  • Livraison du dernier 747 — le 1574 ème et dernier exemplaire du #Jumbo_Jet, lancé à la fin des années 1960 par Boeing.

    Une page de l’histoire moderne américaine se tourne. Depuis son usine d’Everett, près de Seattle (Etat de Washington), #Boeing livrait mardi le dernier exemplaire de son 747, après près de 55 années de production pour plus d’une centaine de clients.

    […]

    Le #Boeing_747 est le premier avion à mettre deux couloirs dans sa carlingue, capable d’emmener 440 passagers dans un rayon d’action de plus de 10.000 kilomètres. Des déclinaisons porteront même son autonomie à plus de 14.000 kilomètres avec le 747-400ER.

    Le point faible de l’avion, qui signera sa fin de carrière, est sa consommation effrénée de carburant et ses coûts élevés de maintenance. L’avènement des #compagnies_aériennes « #low_cost » participe aussi au #déclin, avec une préférence pour des avions de plus petite capacité, destinés à des vols plus courts. Au fil des années, la plupart des grandes compagnies aériennes - d’#Air_France à #British_Airways en passant par #Lufthansa ou #Qantas -, ont ainsi revendu leur #flotte de 747 ou les ont envoyés à la casse, négociant la carlingue au prix du métal.

    (Les Échos)

    #aviation #long_courrier #avion

  • The myths of British imperial benevolence and Palestine
    https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/16/reckoning-with-the-history-of-colonialism

    16.6.2021 by Priya Satia - Last month, as Israeli artillery destroyed buildings in Gaza, one of two slivers of territory into which Palestinians have been squeezed over the last century, the British government was once again asserting the benevolence of its imperial past against those demanding a reckoning with its harms. #BritishEmpire trended on Twitter even as Gaza burned.

    These phenomena are connected: the persistent whitewashing of British imperial history ensures that condemnations of Israel’s actions as “settler colonialism” fail to resonate morally in many quarters. Far from tainting Israel’s origins, the country’s British antecedents are held up as validating. The British government’s Balfour Declaration proclaiming support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in 1917 is mythologised as having laid the foundation for a Jewish state in the Middle East and thus providing international legitimacy for the creation of the state of Israel. Awareness of the morally dubious origins and meaning of this declaration might help puncture the entangled myths of British imperial benevolence and Israel’s benign presence in Palestine.

    The Balfour Declaration was one of several strategic “promises” the British made during the first world war concerning the territories of the Ottoman Empire, as the British busily dismembered it in the name of protecting the route to India and the oil-rich Gulf. To get the region’s Arab population on their side, they promised the Sharifian rulers of the Hejaz, in the Arabian Peninsula, an independent kingdom stretching through Palestine to Damascus. At the same time, in secret negotiations with the French and the Russians to divide the region, they promised to make Palestine an international territory. When Russia withdrew from the war in October 1917, they saw an urgent need to secure the British position in the Middle East with a fresh promise, this time to the Zionist movement. Palestine thus became a thrice-promised land – reason enough to doubt the sacredness of any one of the promises.

    The new promise was officially authored by the British foreign secretary, leading Conservative Arthur James Balfour. Known as “Bloody Balfour” for his suppression of Irish demands for greater independence as chief secretary for Ireland, Balfour was a determined imperialist. He was also an amateur philosopher suspicious of reason and drawn to the occult – and the notion of the occult power of certain groups. The idea that a promise to the Zionists would secure the Middle East for them emerged partly out of his anti-Semitic assumption, which was shared by other influential British politicians, that Jews controlled public opinion and global finances. Balfour calculated that his propaganda statement would rally American and German Jewish opinion to the Allied cause, while also ending the flow of unwanted Eastern European Jews into Britain.

    The declaration was in line with the type of British settler colonialism that shaped the history of violent dispossession in Kenya and other colonies. That the British thought Palestine was something they could promise to any group without consulting its population was typical imperial presumption. The difference here was that Jewish rather than British settlers would take on the “civilising mission”- and act as a loyal presence near the Suez Canal. The declaration implied Jews were racially and culturally superior to Palestine’s indigenous population, even as it implied that Jews did not properly belong in Europe and possessed conspiratorial powers.

    Not everyone in the British government shared these views. The secretary of state for India, Edwin Montagu, was Jewish and considered the declaration highly anti-Semitic. “Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine,” he feared. He insisted that the members of his family had no necessary “community of view” with Jewish families elsewhere: “It is no more true to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation.” Montagu feared that the declaration would mean that “Jews should be put in all positions of preference” in Palestine, and that Muslims and Christians would be made to “make way for the Jews”. He foresaw: “When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants.”

    Montagu was just then formulating the Montagu Declaration, promising Indians greater self-government to secure their wartime loyalty. Conservatives, especially Balfour, baulked at this concession to anti-colonialism, arguing that Indians were incapable of such self-government. That’s the kind of imperialist Balfour was.

    After the war, the British reneged on all wartime promises about the Middle East: They first betrayed the arrangements with the French by letting the Sharifian Prince Faisal set up a government in Damascus, but then let the French push Faisal out, in exchange for a free hand in oil-rich Mosul. Faisal was instead crowned king of Iraq under British rule – despite wartime promises of independence to Iraqis. Britain took direct control of Palestine (no international territory) – confirming that the Balfour Declaration’s ambiguous promise about a national home implied nothing about Jewish political control. In 1921, Britain also carved Jordan out of Palestine without any sense of having violated the Jewish national home. A White Paper of 1930 backed away from the very idea of a Jewish national home. A Zionist outcry forced the British government to withdraw the paper.

    As Hitler rose to power, hundreds of thousands of desperate European Jews who found doors closed in Britain and the US arrived in Palestine. Increasingly landless and impoverished, Palestinians revolted in 1936. The British drew on brutal, terrorising, and destructive counterinsurgency methods developed in Ireland and Iraq, which shaped the practices of the Israeli military later.

    The British changed policy in 1937 and 1939, by turns favouring the Jews and the Arabs. It was in the course of advising Palestine policy that Winston Churchill uttered his eugenicist defence of settler colonialism in general in 1937: “I do not admit…that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia…by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race…has come in and taken their place.” He saw Jewish settlement of Palestine as analogous to these earlier cases, including their genocidal implication.

    Sign up for Al Jazeera
    Week in the Middle East

    Catch up on our coverage of the region, all in one place.

    At this time, Hitler was also looking to the genocide of Native Americans as a model for his conception of Lebensraum and began to apply the violent logic of settler colonialism in Europe itself. Churchill admired Hitler, devoting a chapter to him in his 1937 book on Great Contemporaries. Though Britons today celebrate Churchill for defeating Nazism, they have still not unambiguously condemned the settler-colonial ideology on which Nazism was founded.

    Apologists for British imperialism instead pour their energies into defending Cecil Rhodes, another promoter of settler colonialism, even after a careful commission has recommended the removal of his statue at Oriel College in Oxford. Rhodes contended: “We are the finest race in the world and…the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.” His private company killed tens of thousands of the Matabele in founding the settler colony of Rhodesia. As prime minister of the Cape Colony, he also established the foundations of South African apartheid – to which the current Israeli regime is often compared – depriving non-white people of the vote and claiming their land. Even his British contemporaries were outraged by his actions.

    Recently, after former US senator Rick Santorum claimed on CNN that settlers created the US “from nothing,…there was nothing here”, erasing not only the existence of Native American cultures and life but also the memory of massive settler violence against them, CNN parted ways with him, responding to intense pressure from the public, including the Native American Journalists Association.

    Major British news outlets such as The Times, however, continue to allot generous space to apologists for settler colonialism. Last month, the Guardian formally regretted its support for the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when its editor wrote: “The existing Arab population of Palestine is…at a low stage of civilisation.” It is time for wider, unequivocal condemnation of its false promise and of the settler-colonial ideology on which it was based.

    British wartime promises were not founded on principle but made for the sake of expedience and grounded in racist notions – hardly ground for the sacred. Moreover, the declaration included self-negating language assuring that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Balfour’s Conservatism was all about avoiding radical change. The declaration was framed vaguely so that it might be broken, like the wartime promises to the Sharifians. There is little in its origins in expedience, colonial presumption, and anti-Semitism to give it the aura of legitimacy – much less sacredness – that it has in some quarters today.

    The British launched settler colonialism in Palestine as carelessly and recklessly as they had in Australia and New Zealand and in Kenya and Rhodesia. Israel’s violence in Gaza is not merely self-defence but part of a longer story of settler colonialism dating from the heyday of European colonialism. Contrary to British myths, settler colonialism was an aggressive process of ethnic cleansing grounded in racism. The US’s support of Israeli encroachment into Palestinian territory is the support of one British-made settler-colonial nation to another. It is no coincidence that that support became especially generous during the Trump administration, which was also unapologetically proud of white supremacy in North America. Reckoning with the history of colonialism is essential to reckoning with colonialism itself.

    Priya Satia - Raymond A Spruance Professor of International History and Professor of History at Stanford University

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

  • The report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

    The Commission’s report sets out a new, positive agenda for change. It balances the needs of individuals, communities and society, maximising opportunities and ensuring fairness for all.

    The Commission has considered detailed quantitative data and qualitative evidence to understand why disparities exist, what works and what does not. It has commissioned new research and invited submissions from across the UK.

    Its work and recommendations will improve the quality of data and evidence about the types of barriers faced by people from different backgrounds. This will help to inform actions and drive effective and lasting change.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities

    #rapport #UK #Angleterre #racisme #discriminations #inégalités
    #Commission_on_Race_and_Ethnic_Disparities (#CRED)

    pour télécharger le rapport :
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf

    • Downing Street rewrote ‘independent’ report on race, experts claim

      Commissioners allege No 10 distorted their work on inequality, after conclusions played down institutional racism.

      Officials at Downing Street have been accused of rewriting much of its controversial report into racial and ethnic disparities, despite appointing an independent commission to conduct an honest investigation into inequality in the UK.

      The Observer has been told that significant sections of the report published on 31 March, which were criticised and debunked by health professionals, academics, business chiefs and crime experts, were not written by the 12 commissioners who were appointed last July.

      The 258-page document was not made available to be read in full or signed off by the group, which included scientist and BBC broadcaster Maggie Aderin-Pocock and Samir Shah, former chair of the Runnymede Trust, nor were they made aware of its 24 final recommendations. Instead, the finished report, it is alleged, was produced by No 10.

      Kunle Olulode, an anti-racism activist and director of the charity Voice4Change, is the first commissioner to condemn the government publicly for its lack of transparency. In a statement to the Observer, Olulode’s charity was scathing of the way evidence was cherrypicked, distorted and denied in the final document.

      “The report does not give enough to show its understanding of institutional or structural discrimination … evidence in sections, that assertive conclusions are based on, is selective,” it said. “The report gives no clear direction on what expectations of the role of public institutions and political leadership should be in tackling race and ethnic disparities. What is the role of the state in this?”

      One commissioner, who spoke out on condition of anonymity, accused the government of “bending” the work of its commission to fit “a more palatable” political narrative and denying the working group the autonomy it was promised.

      “We did not read Tony’s [Sewell] foreword,” they claimed. “We did not deny institutional racism or play that down as the final document did. The idea that this report was all our own work is full of holes. You can see that in the inconsistency of the ideas and data it presents and the conclusions it makes. That end product is the work of very different views.”

      The commissioner revealed that they had been privy only to the section of the report they were assigned, and that it had soon become apparent the exercise was not being taken sufficiently seriously by No 10.

      “Something of this magnitude takes proper time – we were only given five months to do this work, on a voluntary basis,” they said. In contrast to the landmark 1999 #Macpherson_report (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/22/macpherson-report-what-was-it-and-what-impact-did-it-have), an inquiry into the death of #Stephen_Lawrence, or the 2017 #Lammy_Review, both of which took 18 months to conclude, the report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (Cred) was not peer reviewed and was published just seven months after the group first met on a videocall.

      The group, led by Sewell, was set up by #Samuel_Kasumu, No 10’s most senior black special adviser, who resigned from his post on the day the report was published, aghast at its final findings. Accusations that #Munira_Mirza, director of No 10’s policy unit, was heavily involved in steering the direction of the supposedly independent report were not directly addressed by a No 10 spokesperson, who said: “I would reiterate the report is independent and that the government is committed to tackling inequality.”

      A source involved in the commission told the Observer that “basic fundamentals in putting a document like this together were ignored. When you’re producing something so historic, you have to avoid unnecessary controversy, you don’t court it like this report did. And the comms was just shocking.”

      While the prime minister sought to distance himself from the criticism a day after its publication, unusually it was his office rather than the Cred secretariat which initially released the report to the press.

      A spokesperson for the race commission said: “We reject these allegations. They are deliberately seeking to divert attention from the recommendations made in the report.

      “The commission’s view is that, if implemented, these 24 recommendations can change for the better the lives of millions across the UK, whatever their ethnic or social background. That is the goal they continue to remain focused on.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/11/downing-street-rewrote-independent-report-on-race-experts-claim

      #récriture #modification #indépendance #contreverse

    • voir aussi les critiques dans la page wiki dédiée au rapport :
      Reactions

      Political:

      Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, said that he was “disappointed” by the Commission’s report.[10][11]

      Isabelle Parasram, vice president of the Liberal Democrats, issued a statement that the Commission had “missed the opportunity to make a clear, bold statement on the state of race equality in this country”. Parasram said that the “evidence and impact of racism in the UK is overwhelming” and that “whilst some of recommendations made in the report are helpful, they fall far short of what could have been achieved”.[12]

      The Green Party of England and Wales issued a statement condemning the summary of the report as “a deliberate attempt to whitewash institutional racism” and that “Institutional racism in the UK does exist”.[13]

      Other:

      David Goodhart welcomed the report as “a game-changer for how Britain talks about race”.[14]

      Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the Bishop of Dover, described the report as “deeply disturbing”; she said the “lived experience” of the people “tells a different story to that being shared by this report”.[15]

      The historian David Olusoga accused the report’s authors of appearing to prefer “history to be swept under the carpet”.[16]

      A Guardian editorial quoted Boris Johnson’s intent to “change the narrative so we stop the sense of victimisation and discrimination”[17] when setting up the commission, and as evidence of the reality of racial inequality listed five recent government reports on different aspects:[18]

      - the criminal justice system (the David Lammy review of 2017[19][20]);
      - schools, courts, and the workplace (the Theresa May race audit of 2017[21]);
      - pay (the Ruby McGregor-Smith review of 2017[22][23]);
      - deaths in police custody (the Elish Angiolini report of 2017[24]);
      - the Windrush scandal (the Wendy Williams review of 2020[25][26]).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Race_and_Ethnic_Disparities

  • Vie privée : deux tiers des emails reçus contiendraient un « pixel espion »
    https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/46114/vie-privee-deux-tiers-emails-recus-contiendraient-pixel-espion

    C’est le résultat d’une analyse demandée par la BBC à la société Hey, qui fournit pour rappel un service de messagerie qui veut « réinventer l’email ». Le pixel espion – souvent appelé aussi « pixel invisible » – est une pratique courante dans le monde de la publicité, puisqu’il permet de fournir de nombreux renseignements par son simple affichage. Dans un courrier au format web, il renvoie ainsi de précieuses données, comme le type d’appareil utilisé et ses caractéristiques principales, l’emplacement plus (...)

    #BritishAirways #HSBC #TalkTalk #Tesco #Unilever #Vodafone #écoutes #surveillance

  • Artificial intelligence : #Frontex improves its maritime surveillance

    Frontex wants to use a new platform to automatically detect and assess „risks“ on the seas of the European Union. Suspected irregular activities are to be displayed in a constantly updated „threat map“ with the help of self-learning software.

    The EU border agency has renewed a contract with Israeli company Windward for a „maritime analytics“ platform. It will put the application into regular operation. Frontex had initially procured a licence for around 800,000 Euros. For now 2.6 million Euros, the agency will receive access for four workstations. The contract can be extended three times for one year at a time.

    Windward specialises in the digital aggregation and assessment of vessel tracking and maritime surveillance data. Investors in the company, which was founded in 2011, include former US CIA director David Petraeus and former CEO’s of Thomson Reuters and British Petroleum. The former chief of staff of the Israeli military, Gabi Ashkenazi, is considered one of the advisors.

    Signature for each observed ship

    The platform is based on artificial intelligence techniques. For analysis, it uses maritime reporting systems, including position data from the AIS transponders of larger ships and weather data. These are enriched with information about the ship owners and shipping companies as well as the history of previous ship movements. For this purpose, the software queries openly accessible information from the internet.

    In this way, a „fingerprint“ is created for each observed ship, which can be used to identify suspicious activities. If the captain switches off the transponder, for example, the analysis platform can recognise this as a suspicuous event and take over further tracking based on the recorded patterns. It is also possible to integrate satellite images.

    Windward uses the register of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) as its database, which lists about 70,000 ships. Allegedly, however, it also processes data on a total of 400,000 watercraft, including smaller fishing boats. One of the clients is therefore the UN Security Council, which uses the technology to monitor sanctions.

    Against „bad guys“ at sea

    The company advertises its applications with the slogan „Catch the bad guys at sea“. At Frontex, the application is used to combat and prevent unwanted migration and cross-border crime as well as terrorism. Subsequently, „policy makers“ and law enforcement agencies are to be informed about results. For this purpose, the „risks“ found are visualised in a „threat map“.

    Windward put such a „threat map“ online two years ago. At the time, the software rated the Black Sea as significantly more risky than the Mediterranean. Commercial shipping activity off the Crimea was interpreted as „probable sanction evasions“. Ship owners from the British Guernsey Islands as well as Romania recorded the highest proportion of ships exhibiting „risky“ behaviour. 42 vessels were classified as suspicious for drug smuggling based on their patterns.

    Frontex „early warning“ units

    The information from maritime surveillance is likely to be processed first by the „Risk Analysis Unit“ (RAU) at Frontex. It is supposed to support strategic decisions taken by the headquarters in Warsaw on issues of border control, return, prevention of cross-border crime as well as threats of a „hybrid nature“. Frontex calls the applications used there „intelligence products“ and „integrated data services“. Their results flow together in the „Common Integrated Risk Analysis Model“ (CIRAM).

    For the operational monitoring of the situation at the EU’s external borders, the agency also maintains the „Frontex Situation Centre“ (FSC). The department is supposed to provide a constantly updated picture of migration movements, if possible in real time. From these reports, Frontex produces „early warnings“ and situation reports to the border authorities of the member states as well as to the Commission and the Council in Brussels.

    More surveillance capacity in Warsaw

    According to its own information, Windward’s clients include the Italian Guardia di Finanza, which is responsible for controlling Italian territorial waters. The Ministry of the Interior in Rome is also responsible for numerous EU projects aimed at improving surveillance of the central Mediterranean. For the training and equipment of the Libyan coast guard, Italy receives around 67 million euros from EU funds in three different projects. Italian coast guard authorities are also installing a surveillance system for Tunisia’s external maritime borders.

    Frontex now wants to improve its own surveillance capacities with further tenders. Together with the fisheries agency, The agency is awarding further contracts for manned maritime surveillance. It has been operating such a „Frontex Aerial Surveillance Service“ (FASS) in the central Mediterranean since 2017 and in the Adriatic Sea since 2018. Frontex also wants to station large drones in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, it is testing Aerostats in the eastern Mediterranean for a second time. These are zeppelins attached to a 1,000-metre long line.

    https://digit.site36.net/2021/01/15/artificial-intelligence-frontex-improves-its-maritime-surveillance
    #intelligence_artificielle #surveillance #surveillance_maritime #mer #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #AI #Windward #Israël #complexe_militaro-industriel #militarisation_des_frontières #David_Petraeus #Thomson_Reuters #British_Petroleum #armée_israélienne #Gabi_Ashkenazi #International_Maritime_Organisation (#IMO) #thread_map #Risk_Analysis_Unit (#RAU) #Common_Integrated_Risk_Analysis_Model (#CIRAM) #Frontex_Situation_Centre (#FSC) #Frontex_Aerial_Surveillance_Service (#FASS) #zeppelins

    ping @etraces

    • Data et nouvelles technologies, la face cachée du contrôle des mobilités

      Dans un rapport de juillet 2020, l’Agence européenne pour la gestion opérationnelle des systèmes d’information à grande échelle (#EU-Lisa) présente l’intelligence artificielle (IA) comme l’une des « technologies prioritaires » à développer. Le rapport souligne les avantages de l’IA en matière migratoire et aux frontières, grâce, entre autres, à la technologie de #reconnaissance_faciale.

      L’intelligence artificielle est de plus en plus privilégiée par les acteurs publics, les institutions de l’UE et les acteurs privés, mais aussi par le #HCR et l’#OIM. Les agences de l’UE, comme Frontex ou EU-Lisa, ont été particulièrement actives dans l’#expérimentation des nouvelles technologies, brouillant parfois la distinction entre essais et mise en oeuvre. En plus des outils traditionnels de surveillance, une panoplie de technologies est désormais déployée aux frontières de l’Europe et au-delà, qu’il s’agisse de l’ajout de nouvelles #bases_de_données, de technologies financières innovantes, ou plus simplement de la récupération par les #GAFAM des données laissées volontairement ou pas par les migrant·e·s et réfugié∙e∙s durant le parcours migratoire.

      La pandémie #Covid-19 est arrivée à point nommé pour dynamiser les orientations déjà prises, en permettant de tester ou de généraliser des technologies utilisées pour le contrôle des mobilités sans que l’ensemble des droits des exilé·e·s ne soit pris en considération. L’OIM, par exemple, a mis à disposition des Etats sa #Matrice_de_suivi_des_déplacements (#DTM) durant cette période afin de contrôler les « flux migratoires ». De nouvelles technologies au service de vieilles obsessions…

      http://www.migreurop.org/article3021.html

      Pour télécharger le rapport :
      www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/note_12_fr.pdf

      ping @karine4 @rhoumour @_kg_ @i_s_

    • La #technopolice aux frontières

      Comment le #business de la #sécurité et de la #surveillance au sein de l’#Union_européenne, en plus de bafouer des #droits_fondamentaux, utilise les personnes exilées comme #laboratoire de recherche, et ce sur des #fonds_publics européens.

      On a beaucoup parlé ici ces derniers mois de surveillance des manifestations ou de surveillance de l’espace public dans nos villes, mais la technopolice est avant tout déployée aux #frontières – et notamment chez nous, aux frontières de la « forteresse Europe ». Ces #dispositifs_technopoliciers sont financés, soutenus et expérimentés par l’Union européenne pour les frontières de l’UE d’abord, et ensuite vendus. Cette surveillance des frontières représente un #marché colossal et profite grandement de l’échelle communautaire et de ses programmes de #recherche_et_développement (#R&D) comme #Horizon_2020.

      #Roborder – des essaims de #drones_autonomes aux frontières

      C’est le cas du projet Roborder – un « jeu de mots » entre robot et border, frontière en anglais. Débuté en 2017, il prévoit de surveiller les frontières par des essaims de #drones autonomes, fonctionnant et patrouillant ensemble. L’#intelligence_artificielle de ces drones leur permettrait de reconnaître les humains et de distinguer si ces derniers commettent des infractions (comme celui de passer une frontière ?) et leur dangerosité pour ensuite prévenir la #police_aux_frontières. Ces drones peuvent se mouvoir dans les airs, sous l’eau, sur l’eau et dans des engins au sol. Dotés de multiples capteurs, en plus de la détection d’activités criminelles, ces drones seraient destinés à repérer des “#radio-fréquences non fiables”, c’est-à-dire à écouter les #communications et également à mesurer la #pollution_marine.
      Pour l’instant, ces essaims de drones autonomes ne seraient pas pourvus d’armes. Roborder est actuellement expérimenté en #Grèce, au #Portugal et en #Hongrie.

      Un #financement européen pour des usages « civils »

      Ce projet est financé à hauteur de 8 millions d’euros par le programme Horizon 2020 (subventionné lui-même par la #Cordis, organe de R&D de la Commission européenne). Horizon 2020 représente 50% du financement public total pour la recherche en sécurité de l’UE. Roborder est coordonné par le centre de recherches et technologie de #Hellas (le #CERTH), en Grèce et comme le montre l’association #Homo_Digitalis le nombre de projets Horizon 2020 ne fait qu’augmenter en Grèce. En plus du CERTH grec s’ajoutent environ 25 participants venus de tous les pays de l’UE (où on retrouve les services de police d’#Irlande_du_Nord, le ministère de la défense grecque, ou encore des entreprises de drones allemandes, etc.).

      L’une des conditions pour le financement de projets de ce genre par Horizon 2020 est que les technologies développées restent dans l’utilisation civile, et ne puissent pas servir à des fins militaires. Cette affirmation pourrait ressembler à un garde-fou, mais en réalité la distinction entre usage civil et militaire est loin d’être clairement établie. Comme le montre Stephen Graham, très souvent les #technologies, à la base militaires, sont réinjectées dans la sécurité, particulièrement aux frontières où la migration est criminalisée. Et cette porosité entre la sécurité et le #militaire est induite par la nécessité de trouver des débouchés pour rentabiliser la #recherche_militaire. C’est ce qu’on peut observer avec les drones ou bien le gaz lacrymogène. Ici, il est plutôt question d’une logique inverse : potentiellement le passage d’un usage dit “civil” de la #sécurité_intérieure à une application militaire, à travers des ventes futures de ces dispositifs. Mais on peut aussi considérer la surveillance, la détection de personnes et la #répression_aux_frontières comme une matérialisation de la #militarisation de l’Europe à ses frontières. Dans ce cas-là, Roborder serait un projet à fins militaires.

      De plus, dans les faits, comme le montre The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2019/05/11/drones-artificial-intelligence-europe-roborder), une fois le projet terminé celui-ci est vendu. Sans qu’on sache trop à qui. Et, toujours selon le journal, beaucoup sont déjà intéressés par Roborder.

      #IborderCtrl – détection d’#émotions aux frontières

      Si les essaims de drones sont impressionnants, il existe d’autres projets dans la même veine. On peut citer notamment le projet qui a pour nom IborderCtrl, testé en Grèce, Hongrie et #Lettonie.

      Il consiste notamment en de l’#analyse_d’émotions (à côté d’autres projets de #reconnaissances_biométriques) : les personnes désirant passer une frontière doivent se soumettre à des questions et voient leur #visage passer au crible d’un #algorithme qui déterminera si elles mentent ou non. Le projet prétend « accélérer le #contrôle_aux_frontières » : si le #détecteur_de_mensonges estime qu’une personne dit la vérité, un code lui est donné pour passer le contrôle facilement ; si l’algorithme considère qu’une personne ment, elle est envoyée dans une seconde file, vers des gardes-frontières qui lui feront passer un #interrogatoire. L’analyse d’émotions prétend reposer sur un examen de « 38 #micro-mouvements du visage » comme l’angle de la tête ou le mouvement des yeux. Un spectacle de gadgets pseudoscientifiques qui permet surtout de donner l’apparence de la #neutralité_technologique à des politiques d’#exclusion et de #déshumanisation.

      Ce projet a également été financé par Horizon 2020 à hauteur de 4,5 millions d’euros. S’il semble aujourd’hui avoir été arrêté, l’eurodéputé allemand Patrick Breyer a saisi la Cour de justice de l’Union Européenne pour obtenir plus d’informations sur ce projet, ce qui lui a été refusé pour… atteinte au #secret_commercial. Ici encore, on voit que le champ “civil” et non “militaire” du projet est loin de représenter un garde-fou.

      Conclusion

      Ainsi, l’Union européenne participe activement au puissant marché de la surveillance et de la répression. Ici, les frontières et les personnes exilées sont utilisées comme des ressources de laboratoire. Dans une optique de militarisation toujours plus forte des frontières de la forteresse Europe et d’une recherche de profit et de développement des entreprises et centres de recherche européens. Les frontières constituent un nouveau marché et une nouvelle manne financière de la technopolice.

      Les chiffres montrent par ailleurs l’explosion du budget de l’agence européenne #Frontex (de 137 millions d’euros en 2015 à 322 millions d’euros en 2020, chiffres de la Cour des comptes européenne) et une automatisation toujours plus grande de la surveillance des frontières. Et parallèlement, le ratio entre le nombre de personnes qui tentent de franchir la Méditerranée et le nombre de celles qui y laissent la vie ne fait qu’augmenter. Cette automatisation de la surveillance aux frontières n’est donc qu’une nouvelle façon pour les autorités européennes d’accentuer le drame qui continue de se jouer en Méditerranée, pour une “efficacité” qui finalement ne profite qu’aux industries de la surveillance.

      Dans nos rues comme à nos frontières nous devons refuser la Technopolice et la combattre pied à pied !

      https://technopolice.fr/blog/la-technopolice-aux-frontieres

    • Artificial Intelligence - based capabilities for European Border and Coast Guard

      In 2019, Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, commissioned #RAND Europe to carry out an Artificial intelligence (AI) research study.

      The purpose of the study was to provide an overview of the main opportunities, challenges and requirements for the adoption of AI-based capabilities in border managament. Frontex’s intent was also to find synergies with ongoing AI studies and initiatives in the EU and contribute to a Europe-wide AI landscape by adding the border security dimension.

      Some of the analysed technologies included automated border control, object recognition to detect suspicious vehicles or cargo and the use of geospatial data analytics for operational awareness and threat detection.

      As part of the study, RAND provided Frontex in 2020 with a comprehensive report and an executive summary with conclusions and recommendations.

      The findings will support Frontex in shaping the future landscape of AI-based capabilities for Integrated Border Management, including AI-related research and innovation projects which could be initiated by Frontex (e.g. under #EU_Innovation_Hub) or recommended to be conducted under the EU Research and Innovation Programme (#Horizon_Europe).

      https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/artificial-intelligence-based-capabilities-for-european-border-and-co

    • Pour les réfugiés, la #biométrie tout au long du chemin

      Par-delà les murs qui poussent aux frontières du monde depuis les années 1990, les réfugiés, migrants et demandeurs d’asile sont de plus en plus confrontés à l’extension des bases de #données_biométriques. Un « #mur_virtuel » s’étend ainsi à l’extérieur, aux frontières et à l’intérieur de l’espace Schengen, construit autour de programmes et de #bases_de_données.

      Des réfugiés qui paient avec leurs #iris, des migrants identifiés par leurs #empreintes_digitales, des capteurs de #reconnaissance_faciale, mais aussi d’#émotions… Réunis sous la bannière de la « #frontière_intelligente », ces #dispositifs_technologiques, reposant sur l’#anticipation, l’#identification et l’#automatisation du franchissement de la #frontière grâce aux bases de données biométriques, ont pour but de trier les voyageurs, facilitant le parcours des uns et bloquant celui des autres.

      L’Union européenne dispose ainsi d’une batterie de bases de données qui viennent compléter les contrôles aux frontières. Depuis 2011, une agence dédiée, l’#Agence_européenne_pour_la_gestion_opérationnelle_des_systèmes_d’information_à_grande_échelle, l’#EU-Lisa, a pour but d’élaborer et de développer, en lien avec des entreprises privées, le suivi des demandeurs d’asile.

      Elle gère ainsi plusieurs bases compilant des #données_biométriques. L’une d’elles, le « #Entry_and_Exit_System » (#EES), sera déployée en 2022, pour un coût évalué à 480 millions d’euros. L’EES a pour mission de collecter jusqu’à 400 millions de données sur les personnes non européennes franchissant les frontières de l’espace Schengen, afin de contrôler en temps réel les dépassements de durée légale de #visa. En cas de séjour prolongé devenu illégal, l’alerte sera donnée à l’ensemble des polices européennes.

      Se brûler les doigts pour ne pas être enregistré

      L’EU-Lisa gère également le fichier #Eurodac, qui consigne les empreintes digitales de chacun des demandeurs d’asile de l’Union européenne. Utilisé pour appliquer le #règlement_Dublin III, selon lequel la demande d’asile est déposée et traitée dans le pays européen où le migrant a été enregistré la première fois, il entraîne des stratégies de #résistance.

      « On a vu des migrants refuser de donner leurs empreintes à leur arrivée en Grèce, ou même se brûler les doigts pour ne pas être enregistrés dans Eurodac, rappelle Damien Simonneau, chercheur à l’Institut Convergences Migrations du Collège de France. Ils savent que s’ils ont, par exemple, de la famille en Allemagne, mais qu’ils ont été enregistrés en Grèce, ils seront renvoyés en Grèce pour que leur demande y soit traitée, ce qui a des conséquences énormes sur leur vie. » La procédure d’instruction dure en effet de 12 à 18 mois en moyenne.

      La collecte de données biométriques jalonne ainsi les parcours migratoires, des pays de départs jusqu’aux déplacements au sein de l’Union européenne, dans un but de limitation et de #contrôle. Pour lutter contre « la criminalité transfrontalière » et « l’immigration clandestine », le système de surveillance des zones frontières #Eurosur permet, via un partage d’informations en temps réel, d’intercepter avant leur arrivée les personnes tentant d’atteindre l’Union européenne.

      Des contrôles dans les pays de départ

      Pour le Transnational Institute, auteur avec le think tank Stop Wapenhandel et le Centre Delàs de plusieurs études sur les frontières, l’utilisation de ces bases de données témoigne d’une stratégie claire de la part de l’Union européenne. « Un des objectifs de l’expansion des #frontières_virtuelles, écrivent-ils ainsi dans le rapport Building Walls (https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/building_walls_-_full_report_-_english.pdf), paru en 2018, est d’intercepter les réfugiés et les migrants avant même qu’ils n’atteignent les frontières européennes, pour ne pas avoir à traiter avec eux. »

      Si ces techniques permettent de pré-trier les demandes pour fluidifier le passage des frontières, en accélérant les déplacements autorisés, elles peuvent également, selon Damien Simonneau, avoir des effets pervers. « L’utilisation de ces mécanismes repose sur l’idée que la #technologie est un facilitateur, et il est vrai que l’#autonomisation de certaines démarches peut faciliter les déplacements de personnes autorisées à franchir les frontières, expose-t-il. Mais les technologies sont faillibles, et peuvent produire des #discriminations. »

      Ces #techniques_virtuelles, aux conséquences bien réelles, bouleversent ainsi le rapport à la frontière et les parcours migratoires. « Le migrant est confronté à de multiples points "frontière", disséminés un peu partout, analyse Damien Simonneau. Cela crée des #obstacles supplémentaires aux parcours migratoires : le contrôle n’est quasiment plus lié au franchissement d’une frontière nationale, il est déterritorialisé et peut se produire n’importe où, en amont comme en aval de la frontière de l’État. »

      Ainsi, la « politique d’#externalisation de l’Union européenne » permet au contrôle migratoire de s’exercer dans les pays de départ. Le programme européen « #SIV » collecte par exemple dès leur formulation dans les #consulats les données biométriques liées aux #demandes_de_visas.

      Plus encore, l’Union européenne délègue une partie de la gestion de ses frontières à d’autres pays : « Dans certains États du Sahel, explique Damien Simonneau, l’aide humanitaire et de développement est conditionnée à l’amélioration des contrôles aux frontières. »

      Un programme de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), le programme #MIDAS, financé par l’Union européenne, est ainsi employé par 23 pays, majoritairement en Afrique, mais aussi en Asie et en Amérique. Son but est de « collecter, traiter, stocker et analyser les informations [biométriques et biographiques] des voyageurs en temps réel » pour aider les polices locales à contrôler leurs frontières. Mais selon le réseau Migreurop, ces données peuvent également être transmises aux agences policières européennes. L’UE exerce ainsi un droit de regard, via Frontex, sur le système d’information et d’analyse de données sur la migration, installé à Makalondi au Niger.

      Des réfugiés qui paient avec leurs yeux

      Un mélange des genres, entre organisations humanitaires et États, entre protection, logistique et surveillance, qui se retrouve également dans les #camps_de_réfugiés. Dans les camps jordaniens de #Zaatari et d’#Azarq, par exemple, près de la frontière syrienne, les réfugiés paient depuis 2016 leurs aliments avec leurs iris.

      L’#aide_humanitaire_alimentaire distribuée par le Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM) leur est en effet versée sur un compte relié à leurs données biométriques. Il leur suffit de passer leurs yeux dans un scanner pour régler leurs achats. Une pratique qui facilite grandement la gestion #logistique du camp par le #HCR et le PAM, en permettant la #traçabilité des échanges et en évitant les fraudes et les vols.

      Mais selon Léa Macias, anthropologue à l’EHESS, cela a aussi des inconvénients. « Si ce paiement avec les yeux peut rassurer certains réfugiés, dans la mesure où cela les protège contre les vols, développe-t-elle, le procédé est également perçu comme une #violence. Les réfugiés ont bien conscience que personne d’autre au monde, dans une situation normale, ne paie ainsi avec son #corps. »

      Le danger de la fuite de données

      La chercheuse s’inquiète également du devenir des données ainsi collectées, et se pose la question de l’intérêt des réfugiés dans ce processus. « Les humanitaires sont poussés à utiliser ces nouvelles technologies, expose-t-elle, qui sont vues comme un gage de fiabilité par les bailleurs de fonds. Mais la #technologisation n’est pas toujours dans l’intérêt des réfugiés. En cas de fuite ou de hackage des bases de données, cela les expose même à des dangers. »

      Un rapport de Human Rights Watch (HRW) (https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/15/un-shared-rohingya-data-without-informed-consent), publié mardi 15 juin, alerte ainsi sur des #transferts_de_données biométriques appartenant à des #Rohingyas réfugiés au Bangladesh. Ces données, collectées par le Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) de l’ONU, ont été transmises par le gouvernement du Bangladesh à l’État birman. Si le HCR a réagi (https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/press/2021/6/60c85a7b4/news-comment-statement-refugee-registration-data-collection-bangladesh.html) en affirmant que les personnes concernées avaient donné leur accord à ce #transfert_de_données pour préparer un éventuel retour en Birmanie, rien ne permet cependant de garantir qu’ils seront bien reçus si leur nom « bipe » au moment de passer la frontière.

      https://www.rfi.fr/fr/technologies/20210620-pour-les-r%C3%A9fugi%C3%A9s-la-biom%C3%A9trie-tout-au-long-du-chemin

      #smart_borders #tri #catégorisation #déterritorialisation #réfugiés_rohingyas

      –---

      Sur les doigts brûlés pour ne pas se faire identifier par les empreintes digitales, voir la scène du film Qu’ils reposent en paix de Sylvain George, dont j’ai fait une brève recension :

      Instant tragique : ce qu’un migrant appelle la « prière ». Ce moment collectif où les migrants tentent de faire disparaître leurs empreintes digitales. Étape symbolique où ils se défont de leur propre identité.

      https://visionscarto.net/a-calais-l-etat-ne-peut-dissoudre

  • ’We pick your food’ : migrant workers speak out from Spain’s ’Plastic Sea’

    In #Almería’s vast farms, migrants pick food destined for UK supermarkets. But these ‘essential workers’ live in shantytowns and lack PPE as Covid cases soar.

    It is the end of another day for Hassan, a migrant worker from Morocco who has spent the past 12 hours under a sweltering late summer sun harvesting vegetables in one of the vast greenhouses of Almería, southern Spain.

    The vegetables he has dug from the red dirt are destined for dinner plates all over Europe. UK supermarkets including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Lidl and Aldi all source fruit and vegetables from Almería. The tens of thousands of migrant workers working in the province are vital to the Spanish economy and pan-European food supply chains. Throughout the pandemic, they have held essential worker status, labouring in the fields while millions across the world sheltered inside.

    Yet tonight, Hassan will return to the squalor and rubbish piles of El Barranquete, one of the poorest of 92 informal worker slums that have sprung up around the vast farms of Almería and which are now home to an estimated 7,000-10,000 people.

    Here, in the middle of Spain’s Mar del Plastico (Plastic Sea), the 31,000 hectares (76,600 acres) of farms and greenhouses in the region of Andalucía known as “Europe’s garden”, many of El Barranquete’s inhabitants don’t have electricity, running water or sanitation.

    Hassan’s house, like all the others in El Barranquete, is constructed from whatever he could find on rubbish dumps or the side of the road; pieces of plastic foraged from the greenhouses, flaps of cardboard and old hosing tied around lumps of wood. Under Spain’s blazing sun, the temperature can reach 50C – at night the plastic sheeting releases toxic carcinogenic fumes while he sleeps.

    When he first arrived in Spain, Hassan was stunned by how the workers were treated on the farms. Like other workers in El Barranquete, Hassan says he earns only about €5 (£4.50) an hour, well under the legal minimum wage. “The working conditions are terrible,” he says. “Sometimes we work from sunup to sundown in extreme heat, with only a 30-minute break in the whole day.”

    Now, as Almería faces a wave of Covid-19 infections, workers say they have been left completely unprotected. “We pick your food,” says Hassan. “But our health doesn’t matter to anyone.”

    In August, the Observer interviewed more than 45 migrants employed as farm workers in Almería. A joint supply chain investigation by Ethical Consumer magazine has linked many of these workers to the supply chains of UK supermarkets including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Lidl and Aldi.

    All claimed to be facing systemic labour exploitation before and throughout the pandemic such as non-payment of wages and being kept on illegal temporary contracts. Many described being forced to work in a culture of fear and intimidation. Some of those who complained about conditions said they had been sacked or blacklisted.

    Workers employed by Spanish food companies linked to UK supermarkets also claimed that throughout the pandemic they have been denied access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) that under Spanish law they are entitled to as essential workers. Many said they were not given enough face masks, gloves or hand sanitiser and have been unable to socially distance at work.

    One man employed at a big food company supplying the UK says that he has only been given two face masks in six months.

    In response to the investigation, the British Retail Consortium – members of which include Sainsbury’s, Asda, Lidl and Aldi – released a statement calling on the Spanish government to launch an inquiry.

    Commenting on the Observer’s findings, Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty, says the situation facing migrant workers in southern Spain is a human tragedy.

    “The pandemic has exacerbated the unacceptable conditions facing migrant workers and the Spanish government must urgently act. But two-thirds of all fruit and vegetables consumed across Europe and the UK come from these greenhouses and all the companies and retailers up these supply chains have a responsibility to these workers as well,” he says.

    Spain is experiencing the highest numbers of new Covid-19 infections in Europe, with the province of Almería recording more than 100 new cases a day.

    Despite the local government in Almería claiming that the virus has not reached the plastic settlements, there have been multiple outbreaks on farms across the province and in the cortijos, the dilapidated housing blocks near the farms in which workers live.

    As Covid-19 infections rise, medical charities such as as Médicos del Mundo are supplying masks, gloves and temperature checks in the settlements in scenes more reminiscent of a disaster zone than one of the richest countries in the world.

    “People want to protect themselves, but they cannot”, says Almudena Puertas from the NGO Cáritas. “They are here because there is work and we need them.”

    In the past month, the local government in Andalucía has allocated €1.1m to create better health and safety conditions, but critics say they have yet to see any significant improvements.

    “I do not understand why these people are not being rehoused in better accommodation. Do we have to wait for them to get Covid instead of looking for a much more dignified place, with adequate hygienic conditions?” says, Diego Crespo, a Forward Andalucía party MP.

    Hassan knows that his work and living conditions make him vulnerable to becoming infected with Covid-19. When asked whether he is supplied with PPE at work, Hassan laughs. “Gloves and face masks in the greenhouse? Temperature checks?” he says. “They don’t give you anything.”

    Like many of the people living in the settlements, he say he is more scared of not being able to work than they of becoming ill. If he can’t send money home, his children don’t eat.

    One groups of workers say that they lost their jobs after testing positive for Covid-19 and quarantining at home. Muhammad, a farm worker from Morocco, said that when he and others had recovered and returned to work, some of them were told there was no work for them.

    “When I contracted Covid-19, I’d already spent two years working for this company without papers and two years on a temporary contract, but when I came back they said there is nothing for me here,” he says. He says he and the other workers who did not get their jobs back also did not receive the sick pay they were entitled to as essential workers.

    The Soc-Sat union, which represents agricultural workers across Almería, says the failure to provide farm workers with basic PPE speaks to the culture of impunity that surrounds the mistreatment of Spain’s migrant workforce.

    “Around 80% of fruit companies in Almería are breaking the law,” says José García Cuevas, a Soc-Sat union leader. The union says that across the region, widespread fraud is being perpetrated on the farm workers. “People will work 25 days but their employers will only count 10,” he says. “Or when you look at the payslips, it says €58 a day, which is minimum wage but that’s not what the worker is receiving.” He says that according to figures from the General Union of Workers, workers lose out on up to €50m of wages every year.

    For decades, the exploitation and abuse of migrant workers in Spain has been widely condemned by UN officials and human rights campaigners, but to little effect.

    Soc-Sat says that in 2019 it dealt with more than 1,000 complaints from migrant workers about exploitation and working conditions. This year it also says it has helped workers file legal complaints against food companies in Almería for breaching labour laws and not providing adequate PPE.

    “If, under normal conditions, health and safety regulations are not followed, you can imagine what’s happening in the current situation with a pandemic,” says García Cuevas.

    In its statement, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) says its members have zero tolerance for labour exploitation: “Many grocery members have funded and supported the Spain Ethical Trade Supplier Forums ... We call on the Spanish government to launch an investigation into labour conditions in the Almería region to help our members stamp out any exploitative practices.”

    In a separate statement, Tesco says it was aware of the issues surrounding migrant workers in Southern Spain and that the company worked closely with growers, suppliers and Spanish ethical trade forums to ensure good standards.

    The Andalucían Ministry for Labour, Training and Self-Employment in Andalucía said that it had delivered training for businesses on how to protect workers against Covid-19. In a statement it says, “You cannot criminalise an entire sector that is subject to all kinds of controls by the labour, health and other authorities and that must also abide by strict regulations regarding the protection of workers’ rights and prevention and occupational health.”

    In two weeks, the greenhouses of Almería will be at their busiest as the high season for tomatoes, peppers and salad begins. Ali, a farm worker who has been in Spain for more than 15 years, doesn’t expect his situation to improve.

    “If you complain, they will say: ‘If you don’t want to work here then go home,’” he says. “Every worker here has a family, a wife and children, but the only thing that matters is that we work to get the vegetables to Germany or the UK. It’s like they have forgotten we are also human beings.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/sep/20/we-pick-your-food-migrant-workers-speak-out-from-spains-plastic-sea
    #Espagne #agriculture #exploitation #asile #migrations #travail #alimentation #plastique #supermarchés #grande_distribution #migrants_marocains #serres #légumes #Tesco #Sainsbury’s #Asda #Lidl #Aldi #El_Barranquete #Mar_del_Plastico #Andalucía #Andalucia #travail #conditions_de_travail #esclavage_moderne #covid-19 #coronavirus #logement #hébergement #Soc-Sat #British_Retail_Consortium (#BRC) #Spain_Ethical_Trade_Supplier_Forums

    ping @isskein @karine4 @thomas_lacroix

  • UK Deportations 2020: how BA, #Easyjet and other airlines collaborate with the border regime

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis, with hundreds of people released from detention. But a recent charter flight to Poland shows the motor is still ticking over. Will things just go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts, or can anti-deportation campaigners push for a more radical shift? This report gives an updated overview of the UK deportation system and focuses in on the role of scheduled flights run by major airlines including: #BA, Easyjet, #Kenya_Airways, #Qatar_Airways, #Turkish_Airlines, #Ethiopian_Airlines, #Air_France, #Royal_Jordanian, and #Virgin.

    On 30 April, with UK airports largely deserted during the Covid-19 lockdown, a Titan Airways charter plane took off from Stansted airport deporting 35 people to Poland. This was just a few days after reports of charter flights in the other direction, as UK farmers hired planes to bring in Eastern European fruit-pickers.

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis. Hundreds of people have been released from detention centres, with detainee numbers dropping by 900 over the first four months of 2020. But the Poland flight signals that the Home Office motor is still ticking over. As in other areas, perhaps the big question now is whether things will simply go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts. Or can anti-deportation campaigners use this window to push for a more radical shift?
    An overview of the UK’s deportation machine

    Last year, the UK Home Office deported over seven thousand people. While the numbers of people “removed” have been falling for several years, deportation remains at the heart of the government’s strategy (if that is the term) for “tackling illegal immigration”. It is the ultimate threat behind workplace and dawn raids, rough-sleeper round-ups, “right to rent” checks, reporting centre queues, and other repressive architecture of the UK Border Regime.

    This report gives an overview of the current state of UK deportations, focusing on scheduled flights run by major airlines. Our previous reports on UK deportations have mainly looked at charter flights: where the Home Office aims to fill up chartered planes to particular destinations, under heavy guard and typically at night from undisclosed locations. These have been a key focus for anti-deportation campaigners for a number of reasons including their obvious brutality, and their use as a weapon to stifle legal and direct resistance. However, the majority of deportations are on scheduled flights. Deportees are sitting – at the back handcuffed to private security “escorts” – amongst business or holiday travellers.

    These deportations cannot take place without extensive collaboration from businesses. The security guards are provided by outsourcing company Mitie. The tickets are booked by business travel multinational Carlson Wagonlit. The airlines themselves are household names, from British Airways to Easyjet. This report explains how the Home Office and its private sector collaborators work together as a “deportation machine” held together by a range of contractual relationships.

    Some acknowledgements

    Many individuals and campaign groups helped with information used in this report. In particular, Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants shared their valuable research and legal advice, discussed below.

    We have produced this report in collaboration with the Air Deportation Project led by William Walters at the University of Carleton in Canada, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Corporate Watch received funding from this project as a contribution for our work on this report.

    Names, numbers

    First a quick snapshot of deportation numbers, types and destinations. We also need to clear up some terminology.

    We will use the term “deportations” to refer to all cases where the Home Office moves someone out of the country under direct force (for scheduled flights, this usually means handcuffed to a security “escort”). In the Home Office’s own jargon, these are called “enforced returns”, and the word “deportation” is reserved for people ejected on “public policy” rather than “immigration” grounds – mostly Foreign National Offenders who have been convicted by criminal courts. The Home Office refers to deportations carried out under immigration law euphemistically, calling them “removals” or “returns”.i

    As well as “enforced returns”, there are also so-called “voluntary returns”. This means that there is no direct use of force – no guard, no leg or arm restraints. But the term “voluntary” is stretched. Many of these take place under threat of force: e.g., people are pressured to sign “voluntary return” agreements to avoid being forcibly deported, or as the only chance of being released from detention. In other cases, people may agree to “voluntary return” as the only escape route from a limbo of reporting controls, lack of rights to work or rent legally, or destitution threatened by “no recourse to public funds”.

    In 2019, the Home Office reported a total of 18,782 returns: 7,361 “enforced” and 11,421 “voluntary”.ii
    These figures include 5,110 “Foreign National Offenders” (27%). (The Home Office says the majority of these were enforced returns, although no precise figure is provided.)
    There is a notable trend of declining removals, both enforced and “voluntary”. For example, in 2015 there were 41,789 returns altogether, 13,690 enforced and 28,189 “voluntary”. Both enforced and voluntary figures have decreased every year since then.
    Another notable trend concerns the nationalities of deportees. Europeans make up an increasing proportion of enforced deportations. 3,498, or 48%, of all enforced returns in 2019 were EU citizens – and this does not include other heavily targeted non-EU European nationalities such as Albanians. In 2015, there were 3,848 EU enforced returns – a higher absolute figure, but only 28% of a much higher overall total. In contrast, EU nationals still make up a very small percentage of “voluntary” returns – there were only 107 EU “voluntary returns” in 2019.
    The top nationalities for enforced returns in 2019 were: Romania (18%), Albania (12%), Poland (9%), Brazil (8%) and Lithuania (6%). For voluntary returns they were: India (16%), China (9%), Pakistan (9%).

    We won’t present any analysis of these figures and trends here. The latest figures show continuing evidence of patterns we looked at in our book The UK Border Regime.iii One key point we made there was that, as the resources and physical force of the detention and deportation system are further diminished, the Border Regime is more than ever just a “spectacle” of immigration enforcement – a pose for media and key voter audiences, rather than a realistic attempt to control migration flows. We also looked at how the scapegoat groups targeted by this spectacle have shifted over recent decades – including, most recently, a new focus on European migration accompanying, or in fact anticipating, the Brexit debate.

    Deportation destinations

    Home Office Immigration Statistics also provide more detailed dataiv on the destinations people are “returned” to, which will be important when we come to look at routes and airline involvement. Note that, while there is a big overlap between destinations and nationalities, they are of course not the same thing. For example, many of those deported to France and other western European countries are “third country” removals of refugees under the Dublin agreement – in which governments can deport an asylum seeker where they have already been identified in another EU country.

    Here are the top 20 destinations for deportations in 2019 – by which, to repeat, we mean all enforced returns:

    It is worth comparing these figures with a similar table of top 20 deportation destinations in the last 10 years – between 2010 and 2019. This comparison shows very strongly the recent shift to targeting Europeans.

    The Home Office: who is targeted and how

    As we will see, the actual physical business of deporting people is outsourced to private companies. The state’s role remains giving the orders about who is targeted for arrest and detention, who is then released, and who is forced onto a plane. Here we’ll just take a very quick look at the decision-making structures at work on the government side. This is based on the much more detailed account in The UK Border Regime.

    The main state body responsible for immigration control in the UK is the Home Office, the equivalent of other countries’ Interior Ministries. In its current set-up, the Home Office has three divisions: Homeland Security, which runs security and intelligence services; Public Safety, which oversees the police and some other institutions; and Borders, Immigration and Citizenship. The last of these is further divided into three “directorates”: UK Visas and Immigration, which determines visa and asylum applications; Border Force, responsible for control at the frontiers; Immigration Enforcement, responsible for control within the national territory – including detention and deportations. Immigration Enforcement itself has an array of further departments and units. Regular restructuring and reshuffling of all these structures is known to bewilder immigration officers themselves, contributing to the Home Office’s notoriously low morale.v

    At the top of the tree is the Home Secretary (interior minister), supported by a more junior Immigration Minister. Along with the most senior civil servants and advisors, these ministers will be directly involved in setting top-level policies on deportations.

    For example, an enquiry led by then prisons and probation ombudsman Stephen Shaw into the Yarl’s Wood detention centre revolt in 2002 has given us some valuable insight into the development of modern Home Office deportation policy under the last Labour government. Then Home Secretary Jack Straw, working with civil servants including the Home Office permanent secretary Sir David Omand, introduced the first deportation targets we are aware of, in 2000. They agreed a plan to deport 12,000 people in 2000-1, rising to 30,000 people the next year, and eventually reaching 57,000 in 2003-4.vi

    Nearly two decades later, Home Secretary Amber Rudd was pushed to resign after a leak confirmed that the Home Office continued to operate a deportation targets policy, something of which she had denied knowledge.vii The 2017-18 target, revealed in a leaked letter to Rudd from Immigration Enforcement’s director general Hugh Ind, was for 12,800 enforced returns.viii

    As the figures discussed above show, recent austerity era Conservative governments are more modest than the last Labour government in their overall deportation targets, and have moved to target different groups. Jack Straw’s deportation programme was almost entirely focused on asylum seekers whose claims had been refused. This policy derived from what the Blair government saw as an urgent need to respond to media campaigns demonising asylum seekers. Twenty years on, asylum seekers now make up a minority of deportees, and have been overtaken by new media bogeymen including European migrants.

    In addition, recent Home Office policy has put more effort into promoting “voluntary” returns – largely for cost reasons, as security guards and detention are expensive. This was the official rationale behind Theresa May’s infamous “racist van” initiative, where advertising vans drove round migrant neighbourhoods parading “Go Home” slogans and a voluntary return hotline number.

    How do Home Office political targets translate into operations on the ground? We don’t know all the links, but can trace some main mechanisms. Enforced returns begin with arrests. One of the easiest ways to find potential deportees is to grab people as they walk in to sign at an Immigration Reporting Centre. 80,000 migrants in the UK are “subject to reporting requirements”, and all Reporting Centres include short-term holding cells.ix Other deportees are picked up during immigration raids – such as daytime and evening raids on workplaces, or dawn raids to catch “immigration offenders” in their beds.x

    Both reporting centre caseworkers and Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) raid squads are issued with targets and incentives to gather deportees. An Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) report from 2017 explains how reporting centre staff work specifically to deportation targets. The inspector also tells us how:

    Staff at the London Reporting Centres worked on the basis that to meet their removal targets they needed to detain twice the number of individuals, as around half of those detained would later raise a barrier to removal and be released from detention.

    ICE raid teams are set monthly priorities by national and regional commanders, which may include targeting specific nationalities for deportation. For example, the Home Office has repeatedly denied that it sets nationality targets in order to fill up charter flights to particular destinations – but this practice was explicitly confirmed by an internal document from 2014 (an audit report from the director of Harmondsworth detention centre) obtained by Corporate Watch following a Freedom of Information legal battle.xi

    Day-to-day deportation and detention decisions are overseen by a central unit called the National Removals Command (NRC). For example, after ICE raid officers make arrests they must call NRC to authorise individuals’ detention. This decision is made on the basis of any specific current targets, and otherwise on general “removability”.

    “Removability” means the chance of successfully getting their “subject” onto a plane without being blocked by lack of travel documents, legal challenges and appeals, or other obstacles. For example, nationals of countries with whom the UK has a formal deportation agreement are, all other things being equal, highly removable. This includes the countries with which the UK has set up regular charter flight routes – including Albania, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana, and more recently Jamaica and a number of EU countries. On the other extreme, some nationalities such as Iranians present a problem as their governments refuse to accept deportees.

    The Home Office: “arranging removal” procedure

    A Home Office document called “Arranging Removal” sets out the steps Immigration Enforcement caseworkers need to take to steer their “subject” from arrest to flight.xii

    On the one hand, they are under pressure from penny-pinching bosses keen to get the job done as quick and cheap as possible. On the other, they have to be careful not to make any mistakes deportees’ lawyers could use to get flights cancelled. Immigration Officers have the legal power to order deportations without the need for any court decision – however, many deportations are blocked on appeal to courts.

    Here are some of the main steps involved:

    Removability assessment. The caseworker needs to assess that: there are no “casework barriers” – e.g., an ongoing asylum claim or appeal that would lead to the deportation being stopped by a court; the detainee is medically “fit to fly”; any family separation is authorised correctly; the detainee has a valid travel document.
    Travel Document. If there is no valid travel document, the caseworker can try to obtain an “emergency travel document” through various routes.
    Executive approval. If all these criteria are met, the caseworker gets authorisation from a senior office to issue Removal Directions (RD) paperwork.
    Risk Assessment. Once the deportation is agreed, the caseworker needs to assess risks that might present themselves on the day of the flight – such as medical conditions, the likelihood of detainee resistance and of public protest. At this point escorts and/or medics are requested. A version of this risk assessment is sent to the airline – but without case details or medical history.xiii
    Flight booking. The caseworker must first contact the Airline Ticketing Team who grant access to an online portal called the Electronic Removal Form (ERF). This portal is run by the Home Office’s flight booking contractor Carlson Wagonlit (see below). Tickets are booked for escorts and any medics as well as the deportee. There are different options including “lowest cost” non-refundable fares, or “fully refundable” – the caseworker here should assess how likely the deportation is to be cancelled. One of the options allows the caseworker to choose a specific airline.
    Notice of removal. Finally, the deportee must be served with a Removal Directions (RD) document that includes notification of the deportation destination and date. This usually also includes the flight number. The deportee must be given sufficient notice: for people already in detention this is standardly 72 hours, including two working days, although longer periods apply in some situations.

    In 2015 the Home Office brought in a new policy of issuing only “removal window” notification in many cases – this didn’t specify the date but only a wide timeframe. The window policy was successfully challenged in the courts in March 2019 and is currently suspended.

    #Carlson_Wagonlit

    The electronic booking system is run by a private company, #Carlson_Wagonlit_Travel (#CWT). CWT is also in charge of contracting charter flights.

    Carlson Wagonlit has been the Home Office’s deportation travel agent since 2004, with the contract renewed twice since then. Its current seven year contract, worth £5.7 million, began in November 2017 and will last until October 2024 (assuming the two year extension period is taken up after an initial five years). The Home Office estimated in the contract announcement that it will spend £200 million on deportation tickets and charters over that seven year period.xiv

    Carlson is a global #business travel services company, i.e., a large scale travel agent and booker for companies and government agencies. Its official head office is in France, but it is 100% owned by US conglomerate #Carlson_Companies Inc. It claims to be active in more than 150 countries.

    A report on “outsourced contracts” by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration gives us some information on CWT’s previous (2010-17) contract.xv This is unlikely to be substantially changed in the new version, although deportation numbers have reduced since then. The contract involved:

    management of charter flights and ticketing provision for scheduled flights for migrants subject to enforced removal and escorts, where required, and the management of relationships with carriers to maintain and expand available routes. […] Annually, CWT processed approximately 21,000 booking requests from Home Office caseworkers for tickets for enforced removals. Some booking requests were for multiple travellers and/or more than one flight and might involve several transactions. CWT also managed flight rescheduling, cancellations and refunds. The volume of transactions processed varied from 5,000 to 8,000 per month.

    The inspection report notes the value of CWT’s service to the Home Office through using its worldwide contacts to facilitate deportations:

    Both Home Office and CWT managers noted that CWT’s position as a major travel operator had enabled it to negotiate favourable deals with airlines and, over the life of the contract to increase the range of routes available for enforced removals. (Para 5.10).

    The airlines: regular deportation collaborators

    We saw above that Home Office caseworkers book flight tickets through an online portal set up and managed by Carlson Wagonlit Travel. We also saw how CWT is praised by Home Office managers for its strong relationships with airlines, and ability to negotiate favourable deals.

    For charter flight deportations, we know that CWT has developed a particular relationship with one charter company called Titan Airways. We have looked at Titan in our previous reports on charter flight deportations.

    Does the Home Office also have specific preferred airline partners for scheduled flights? Unfortunately, this isn’t an easy question to answer. Under government procurement rules, the Home Office is required to provide information on contracts it signs – thus, for example, we have at least a redacted version of the contract with CWT. But as all its airline bookings go through the intermediary of CWT, there are no such contracts available. Claiming “commercial confidentiality”, the Home Office has repeatedly information requests on its airline deals. (We will look in a bit more depth at this issue in the annex.)

    As a result, we have no centrally-gathered aggregate data on airline involvement. Our information comes from individual witnesses: deportees themselves; their lawyers and supporters; fellow passengers, and plane crew. Lawyers and support groups involved in deportation casework are a particularly helpful reference, as they may know about multiple deportation cases.

    For this report, we spoke to more than a dozen immigration lawyers and caseworkers to ask which airlines their clients had been booked on. We also spoke to anti-deportation campaign groups including Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants, who have run recent campaigns calling on airlines to refuse to fly deportees; and to the trade union Unite, who represent flight crew workers. We also looked at media reports of deportation flights that identify airlines.

    These sources name a large number of airlines, and some names come up repeatedly. British Airways is top of the list. We list a few more prominent collaborators below: Easyjet, Kenya Airways, Ethiopian Airlines, Qatar Airways, Turkish Airlines, Royal Jordanian. Virgin Airlines is the only company to have publicly announced it has stopped carrying deportees from the UK – although there have been some questions over whether it is keeping this promise.

    However, the information we have does not allow us to determine the exact nature of the relationship with these airlines. How many airlines appear in the CWT booking system – what determines which ones are included? Does CWT have a preferential arrangement with BA or other frequent deportation airlines? Does the Home Office itself have any direct interaction with these airlines’ management? How many airlines are not included in the CWT booking system because they have refused to carry deportees?

    For now, we have to leave these as open questions.

    British Airways

    We have numerous reports of British Airways flying deportees to destinations worldwide – including African and Caribbean destinations, amongst others. Cabin crew representatives in Unite the Union identify British Airways as the main airline they say is involved in deportation flights.

    The airline has long been a key Home Office collaborator. Back in 2003, at the height of the Labour government’s push to escalate deportations, the “escort” security contractor was a company called Loss Prevention International. In evidence to a report by the House of Commons home affairs committee, its chief executive Tom Davies complained that many airlines at this point were refusing to fly deportees. But he singled out BA as the notable exception, saying: “if it were not for […] the support we get from British Airways, the number of scheduled flight removals that we would achieve out of this country would be virtually nil”.xvi

    In 2010, British Airways’ role was highlighted when Jimmy Mubenga was killed by G4S “escorts” on BA flight 77 from Heathrow to Angola.

    Since 2018, there has been an active calling on BA to stop its collaboration. The profile of this issue was raised after BA sponsored Brighton Pride in May 2018 – whilst being involved in deportations of lesbian and gay migrants to African countries where their lives were in danger. After winning a promise from Virgin Airways to cease involvement in deportations (see below), the group Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) have made BA the main target for their anti-deportation campaigning.

    The campaign has also now been supported by BA cabin crew organised in the union Unite. In December 2019 Unite cabin crew branches passed a motion against airline scheduled flight deportations.xvii

    Kenya Airways

    We have numerous reports from caseworkers and campaigners of Kenya Airways flying deportees to destinations in Africa.

    The typical route is a flight from Heathrow to Nairobi, followed by a second onward flight. People deported using this route have included refugees from Sudan and Somalia.

    Easyjet

    We have numerous reports of Easyjet flying deportees to European destinations. Easyjet appears to be a favoured airline for deportations to Eastern European countries, and also for “third country” returns to countries including Italy and Germany. While most UK scheduled deportations are carried out from Heathrow and Gatwick, we have also seen accounts of Easyjet deportations from Luton.

    Qatar Airways

    We have numerous reports of Qatar Airways carrying deportees to destinations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Qatar Airways has carried deportees to Iraq, according to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), and also to Sudan. (In March 2019 the airline suspended its Sudan route, but this appears to have been restarted – the company website currently advertises flights to Khartoum in April 2020.xviii) Other destinations include Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Thailand, the Philippines, and Uganda. The typical route is from Heathrow via Doha.

    Turkish Airlines

    We have numerous reports of Turkish Airlines carrying deportees. The typical route is Heathrow or Gatwick to Istanbul, then an onward flight to further destinations including Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), Turkish Airlines has been one of the main companies involved in deportations to Iraq. A media report from June 2019 also mentions Turkish Airlines carrying someone being deported to Somalia via Istanbul.xix In August 2017, a Turkish Airlines pilot notably refused to fly an Afghani refugee from Heathrow to Istanbul, en route to Kabul, after being approached by campaigners – but this does not reflect general company policy.xx

    Ethiopian Airlines

    We have reports of this airline deporting people to Ethiopia and other African countries, including Sudan. Flights are from Heathrow to Addis Ababa. In April 2018, high-profile Yarl’s Wood hunger striker Opelo Kgari was booked on an Ethiopian flight to Addis Ababa en route to Botswana.

    Air France

    Air France are well-known for carrying deportees from France, and have been a major target for campaigning by anti-deportation activists there. We also have several reports of them carrying deportees from the UK, on flights from Heathrow via Paris.

    Royal Jordanian

    According to IFIR, Royal Jordanian has been involved in deportations to Iraq.

    Virgin Airlines

    In June 2018, Virgin announced that it had ceased taking bookings for deportation flights. Virgin had previously been a regular carrier for deportations to Jamaica and to Nigeria. (NB: Nigeria is often used as a deportation transit hub from where people are subsequently removed to other African countries.) The announcement came after the Windrush scandal led to the Home Office apparently suspending deportations to the Caribbean, and following campaigning by Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) – although Virgin claimed it had made the decision before being contacted by the campaign. A Virgin statement said:

    we made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have already informed the Home Office. We believe this decision is in the best interest of our customers and people, and is in keeping with our values as a company.xxi

    But there are doubts over just how much Virgin’s promise is worth. According to a report by The Independent:

    The airline had agreed to deport a man to Nigeria […] a day after announcing the decision. The only reason he wasn’t removed was because the Home Office agreed to consider new representations following legal intervention.xxii

    Do airlines have a choice?

    In response to its critics, British Airways has consistently given the same reply: it has no choice but to cooperate with the Home Office. According to an August 2018 article in The Guardian, BA says that it has “a legal duty under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove individuals when asked to do so by the Home Office.” A company spokesperson is quoted saying:

    Not fulfilling this obligation amounts to breaking the law. We are not given any personal information about the individual being deported, including their sexuality or why they are being deported. The process we follow is a full risk assessment with the Home Office, which considers the safety of the individual, our customers and crew on the flight.xxiii

    The last parts of this answer fit the process we looked at above. When booking the flight, the Home Office caseworker sends the airline a form called an Airline Risk Report (ARA) which alerts it to risk issues, and specifies why escorts or medics are needed – including an assessment of the likelihood of resistance. But no information should be shared on the deportee’s medical issues or immigration case and reasons for deportation.

    But is it true that an airline would be breaking the law if it refused a booking? Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants have shared with us a legal opinion they received from law firm Duncan Lewis on this issue. We summarise the main points here.

    The law in question is the Immigration Act 1971, Section 27(1)(b)(iii). This states that, when issued the correct legal order by the Home Office, the “owner or agent of a ship or aircraft” must “make arrangements for or in connection with the removal of a person from the United Kingdom when required to do so [by appropriate Removal Directions]”. It is an offence to fail to do so “without reasonable excuse”.

    The offence is punishable by a fine, and potentially a prison sentence of up to six months. As a minor “summary only” offence, any case would be heard by a magistrates’ court rather than a jury.

    In fact many airline captains have refused to carry deportees – as we will see in the next section. But there are no recorded cases of anyone ever being prosecuted for refusing. As with many areas of UK immigration law, there is simply no “case law” on this question.

    If a case ever does come to court, it might turn on that clause about a “reasonable excuse”. The legal opinion explains that the airline might argue they refused to carry a deportee because doing so would present a risk to the aircraft or passengers, for example if there is resistance or protest. A court might well conclude this was “reasonable”.

    On the other hand, the “reasonable excuse” defence could be harder to apply for an airline that took a principled stand to refuse all deportations as a general rule, whether or not there is disruption.

    Again, though, all this is hypothetical as the Home Office has never actually prosecuted anyone. Virgin Airlines, the first company to have publicly stated that it will not fly deportees from the UK, so far has not faced any legal comeback. As reported in the press, a Virgin spokesperson explained the company’s position like this:

    We’ve made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have informed the Home Office. We always comply with the law and would continue to comply with legislation; however, we have ended our contractual agreement to carry involuntary deportees.xxiv

    Due to our lack of information on Home Office agreements with airlines, it’s hard to assess exactly what this means. Possibly, Virgin previously had an outstanding deal with the Home Office and Carlson Wagonlit where their tickets came up on the CWT booking portal and were available for caseworkers, and this has now ended. If the Home Office insisted on contacting them and booking a ticket regardless, they might then be pushed to “comply with the law”.

    Above we saw that, according to evidence referred to in a report of the House of Commons home affairs select committee, in 2003 the majority of airlines actually refused to carry deportees, leaving the Home Office to depend almost exclusively on British Airways. Even in this context there were no prosecutions of airlines.

    This is not an uncommon situation across UK immigration law: much of it has never come to court. For example, as we have discussed in reports on immigration raids, there have been no legal cases testing many of the powers of ICE raid squads. To give another example, on numerous occasions campaigners have obstructed buses taking detainees to charter flights without any prosecution – the Stansted 15 trial of protestors blocking a plane inside the airport was the first high-profile legal case following an anti-deportation action.

    Even if the government has a legal case for prosecuting airlines, this could be a highly controversial move politically. The Home Office generally prefers not to expose the violence of its immigration enforcement activities to the challenge of a public legal hearing.

    Resistance

    We want to conclude this report on an upbeat note. Deportations, and scheduled airline flights in particular, are a major site of struggle. Resistance is not just possible but widespread and often victorious. Thousands of people have managed to successfully stop their “removals” through various means, including the following:

    Legal challenges: a large number of flights are stopped because of court appeals and injunctions.
    Public campaigning: there is a strong tradition of anti-deportation campaigning in the UK, usually supporting individuals with media-focused and political activity. Common tactics include: media articles highlighting the individual’s case; enlisting MPs and appealing to ministers; petitions, letters of support; mass phone calls, emails, etc., to airlines; demos or leafletting at the airport targeting air crew and passengers.
    Solidarity action by passengers: in some high-profile cases, passengers have refused to take their seats until deportees are removed. This creates a safety situation for the airline which may often lead to the pilot ordering escorts to remove their prisoner.
    Direct action by detainees: many detainees have been able to get off flights by putting up a struggle. This may involve, for example: physically resisting escorts; taking off clothes; shouting and appealing to passengers and air crew for help. Unless the deportee is extremely strong physically, the balance of force is with the escorts – and sometimes this can be lethal, as in the case of Jimmy Mubenga. However, pilots may often order deportees off their plane in the case of disruption.

    There are many reports of successful resistance using one or more of these tactics. And we can also get some glimpses of their overall power from a few pieces of aggregate information.

    In a 2016 report, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration revealed one telling figure. Looking at the figures for six months over 2014-15, he found that “on average 2.5 tickets were issued for each individual successfully removed.”xxv Some of this can be put down to the notorious inefficiency of Home Office systems: the Inspection report looks at several kinds of coordination failures between Home Office caseworkers, the escort contractor (at that point a subsidiary of Capita), and Carlson Wagonlit.

    But this is not the biggest factor. In fact, the same report breaks down the reasons for cancellation for a sample of 136 tickets. 51% of the sampled cancellations were the result of legal challenges. 18% were because of “disruptive or non-compliant behaviour”. 2% (i.e., three cases) were ascribed to “airline refusal to carry”.

    Where there is resistance, there is also reaction. As we have discussed in previous reports, one of the main reasons prompting the development of charter flights was to counter resistance by isolating deportees from passengers and supporters. This was very clearly put in 2009 by David Wood, then strategic director of the UK Border Agency (Home Office), who explained that the charter flight programme is:

    “a response to the fact that some of those being deported realised that if they made a big enough fuss at the airport – if they took off their clothes, for instance, or started biting and spitting – they could delay the process. We found that pilots would then refuse to take the person on the grounds that other passengers would object.”xxvi

    For both deportees and supporters, charter flights are much harder to resist. But they are also very expensive; require specific diplomatic agreements with destination countries; and in some cases (Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) have been blocked by legal and political means.xxvii The Home Office cannot avoid the use of scheduled flights for the majority of deportations, and it will continue to face resistance.

    –—
    Annex: issues with accessing airline information

    We will expand a bit here on the issues around obtaining information on the Home Office’s relationships with airlines.

    Under UK and EU public sector procurement rules, central government departments are obliged to publish announcements of all contracts valued over £10,000, including on the contractsfinder website. However, there is no publicly available information on any contracts between the Home Office and specific airlines. This is legally justifiable if the Home Office has no direct contractual agreements with airlines. It has a signed contract with Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT), which is published in a redacted form; and CWT then makes arrangements with airlines on a per-ticket basis.

    The Home Office certainly has knowledge of all the tickets booked on its behalf by CWT – indeed, they are booked by its own employees through the CWT maintained portal. And so it certainly knows all the airlines working for it. But it has refused all requests for this information, using the excuse of “commercial confidentiality”.

    There have been numerous attempts to request information on deportation airlines using the Freedom of Information Act.xxviii All have been refused on similar grounds. To give one standard example, in December 2018 A. Liberadzki requested statistics for numbers of removals carried out by British Airways and other scheduled airlines. The response confirmed “that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested.” However, it argued that:

    “we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)e and 43(2) of the FOIA. These provide that information can be withheld if its disclosure would have a detrimental effect on the Home Office and its ability to operate effective immigration controls by carrying out removals or would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any persons (including the public authority holding it).”

    In April 2019 Kate Osamor MP put similar questions to the Home Secretary in parliament.xxix She received the same reply to all her questions:

    “The Home Office does not disclose the details or values of its commercial contracts. Doing so could discourage companies from dealing with the Home Office.”

    Of course this answer is blatantly false – as we just saw, the Home Office is legally obliged to disclose values of commercial contracts over £10,000.

    https://corporatewatch.org/uk-deportations-2020-how-ba-easyjet-and-other-airlines-collaborate-w

    #rapport #corporate_watch #compagnies_aériennes #British_Airways #avions #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #déboutés #sans-papiers #UK #Home_Office #résistance #Jimmy_Mubenga

    ping @isskein @karine4 @reka

  • Experts warn of privacy risk as US uses GPS to fight coronavirus spread | Technology | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/02/experts-warn-of-privacy-risk-as-us-uses-gps-to-fight-coronavirus-spread

    Mobile advertising companies can collect detailed data about Americans’ movements A transatlantic divide on how to use location data to fight coronavirus risks highlights the lack of safeguards for Americans’ personal data, academics and data scientists have warned. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has turned to data provided by the mobile advertising industry to analyse population movements in the midst of the pandemic. Owing to a lack of systematic privacy (...)

    #BritishTelecom-BT #smartphone #GPS #géolocalisation #métadonnées #BigData #publicité #santé (...)

    ##publicité ##santé ##ICO-UK
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c342254fde8149391353896837fbf6ac4daba928/0_384_5760_3456/master/5760..jpg

  • Le numérique carbure au charbon, par Sébastien Broca (Le Monde diplomatique, mars 2020)
    https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2020/03/BROCA/61553

    Partenariats des géants de la Silicon Valley avec l’industrie pétrolière, consommation massive d’énergie et de ressources : contrairement à ce qu’on a longtemps affirmé, l’économie numérique n’est ni « immatérielle » ni « verte ». Elle produit des dommages écologiques importants, dont les conséquences sont très inégalement réparties à la surface du globe. C’est l’histoire d’un ingénieur de Microsoft que son employeur envoie à Atyraou, sur le plus grand site pétrolier du Kazakhstan, exploité par Chevron en (...)

    #Apple #Chevron #Exxon_Mobil #Google #Microsoft #Total #British_Petroleum_(BP) #Amazon #GoogleCloud #AWS #algorithme #domotique #écologie #minerais #BigData #CloudComputing #comportement #InternetOfThings #surveillance #travail (...)

    ##British_Petroleum__BP_ ##Greenpeace

  • Is the ICO going soft on the ’out of control’ adtech industry ?
    https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/ico-going-soft-out-control-adtech-industry/1671377

    On Friday the Information Commissioner’s Office’s lead investigator on real-time bidding, executive director for technology and innovation Simon McDougall, signalled that the body would not bring enforcement action against Google and the Interactive Advertising Bureau. The ICO warned it would use its regulatory powers against those in the adtech industry that “ignored the window of opportunity to engage and transform”, but he accepted moves by the IAB to educate the industry on special (...)

    #BritishAirways #CambridgeAnalytica #Google #Marriott #Facebook #algorithme #BigData #data #lobbying #profiling #ICO-UK #InteractiveAdvertisingBureau-IAB (...)

    ##publicité

  • Les dessous crasseux du greenwashing d’Amazon | korii.
    https://korii.slate.fr/biz/dessous-crasseux-conscience-ecologique-amazon-coud-industrie-petrole

    Ses annonces relatives aux énergies vertes et à la neutralité carbone sont l’arbre qui cache la forêt de puits de pétrole. En septembre, le PDG d’Amazon Jeff Bezos promettait fièrement dans un communiqué que son entreprise allait utiliser 100% d’énergies renouvelables d’ici à 2030 et atteindre la neutralité carbone en 2040. Il annonçait pour cela la commande de 100.000 vans de livraison totalement électriques. Début décembre, Amazon tenait à Las Vegas une conférence appelée re:Invent et dédiée à AWS, sa (...)

    #Amazon #Chevron #Microsoft #Shell #British_Petroleum_(BP) #AWS #écologie #CloudComputing (...)

    ##British_Petroleum__BP_ ##greenwashing

  • ’I had pain all over my body’: Italy’s tainted tobacco industry

    Three of the world’s largest tobacco manufacturers, #Philip_Morris, #British_American_Tobacco and #Imperial_Brands, are buying leaves that could have been picked by exploited African migrants working in Italy’s multi-million euro industry.

    Workers including children, said they were forced to work up to 12 hours a day without contracts or sufficient health and safety equipment in Campania, a region that produces more than a third of Italy’s tobacco. Some workers said they were paid about three euros an hour.

    The Guardian investigation into Italy’s tobacco industry, which spanned three years, is believed to be the first in Europe to examine the supply chain.

    Italy’s tobacco market is dominated by the three multinational manufacturers, all of whom buy from local producers. According to an internal report by the farmers’ organisation ONT Italia, seen by the Guardian and confirmed by a document from the European Leaf Tobacco Interbranch, the companies bought three-fifths of Italian tobacco in 2017. Philip Morris alone purchased 21,000 tons of the 50,000 tons harvested that year.

    The multinationals all said they buy from suppliers who operate under a strict code of conduct to ensure fair treatment of workers. Philip Morris said it had not come across any abuse. Imperial and British American said they would investigate any complaints brought to their attention.

    Italy is the EU’s leading tobacco producer. In 2017, the industry was worth €149m (£131m).

    Despite there being a complex system of guarantees and safeguards in place for tobacco workers, more than 20 asylum seekers who spoke to the Guardian, including 10 who had worked in the tobacco fields during the 2018 season, reported rights violations and a lack of safety equipment.

    The interviewees said they had no employment contracts, were paid wages below legal standards, and had to work up to 12 work hours a day. They also said they had no access to clean water, and suffered verbal abuse and racial discrimination from bosses. Two interviewees were underage and employed in hazardous work.

    Didier, born and raised in Ivory Coast, arrived in Italy via Libya. He recently turned 18, but was 17 when, last spring, a tobacco grower in Capua Vetere, near the city of Caserta, offered him work in his fields. “I woke up at 4am. We started at 6am,” he said. “The work was exhausting. It was really hot inside the greenhouse and we had no contracts.”

    Alex, from Ghana, another minor who worked in the same area, said he was forced to work 10 to 12 hours a day. “If you are tired or not, you are supposed to work”, otherwise “you lose your job”.

    Workers complained of having to work without a break until lunchtime.

    Alex said he wasn’t given gloves or work clothes to protect him from the nicotine contained in the leaves, or from pesticides. He also said that when he worked without gloves he felt “some sickness like fever, like malaria, or headaches”.

    Moisture on a tobacco leaf from dew or rain may contain as much nicotine as the content of six cigarettes, one study found. Direct contact can lead to nicotine poisoning.

    Most of the migrants said they had worked without gloves. Low wages prevented them from buying their own.

    At the end of the working day, said Sekou, 27, from Guinea, who has worked in the tobacco fields since 2016: “I could not get my hands in the water to take a shower because my hands were cut”.

    Olivier added: “I had pain all over my body, especially on my hands. I had to take painkillers every day.”

    The migrants said they were usually hired on roundabouts along the main roads through Caserta province.

    Workers who spoke to the Guardian said they didn’t have contracts and were paid half the minimum wage. Most earned between €20 and €30 a day, rather than the minimum of €42.

    Thomas, from Ghana, said: “I worked last year in the tobacco fields near Cancello, a village near Caserta. They paid me €3 per hour. The work was terrible and we had no contracts”.

    The Guardian found African workers who were paid €3 an hour, while Albanians, Romanians or Italians, were paid almost double.

    “I worked with Albanians. They paid the Albanians €50 a day,” (€5 an hour), says Didier. “They paid me €3 per hour. That’s why I asked them for a raise. But when I did, they never called back.”

    Tammaro Della Corte, leader of the General Confederation of Italian Workers labour union in Caserta, said: “Unfortunately, the reality of the work conditions in the agricultural sector in the province of Caserta, including the tobacco industry, is marked by a deep labour exploitation, low wages, illegal contracts and an impressive presence of the caporalato [illegal hiring], including extortion and blackmailing of the workers.

    “We speak to thousands of workers who work in extreme conditions, the majority of whom are immigrants from eastern Europe, north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. A large part of the entire supply chain of the tobacco sector is marked by extreme and alarming working conditions.”

    Between 405,000 and 500,000 migrants work in Italy’s agricultural sector, about half the total workforce. According to the Placido Rizzotto Observatory, which investigates worker conditions in the agricultural sector, 80% of those working without contracts are migrants.

    Multinational tobacco companies have invested billions of euros in the industry in Italy. Philip Morris alone has invested €1bn over the past five years and has investment plans on the same scale for the next two years. In 2016, the company invested €500m to open a factory near Bologna to manufacture smokeless cigarettes. A year later, another €500m investment was announced to expand production capacity at the factory.

    British American Tobacco declared investments in Italy of €1bn between 2015 and 2019.

    Companies have signed agreements with the agriculture ministry and farmers’ associations.

    Since 2011, Philip Morris, which buys the majority of tobacco in Campania, has signed agreements to purchase tobacco directly from ONT Italia.

    Philip Morris buys roughly 70% of the Burley tobacco variety produced in Campania. Approximately 900 farmers work for companies who supply to Philip Morris.

    In 2018, Burley and Virginia Bright varieties constituted 90% of Italian tobacco production. About 15,000 tons of the 16,000 tons of Italian Burley are harvested in Campania.

    In 2015, Philip Morris signed a deal with Coldiretti, the main association of entrepreneurs in the agricultural sector, to buy 21,000 tons of tobacco a year from Italian farmers, by investing €500m, until 2020.

    Gennarino Masiello, president of Coldiretti Campania and national vice-president, said the deal included a “strong commitment to respect the rights of employees, banning phenomena like caporalato and child labour”.

    Steps have been taken to improve workers’ conditions in the tobacco industry.

    A deal agreed last year between the Organizzazione Interprofessionale Tabacco Italia (OITI), a farmers’ organisation, and the ministry of agriculture resulted in the introduction of a code of practice in the tobacco industry, including protecting the health of workers, and a national strategy to reduce the environmental impact.

    But last year, the OITI was forced to acknowledge that “workplace abuses often have systemic causes” and that “long-term solutions to address these issues require the serious and lasting commitment of all the players in the supply chain, together with that of the government and other parties involved”.

    Despite the code, the migrants interviewed reported no change in their working conditions.

    In 2017, Philip Morris signed an agreement with the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) to hire 20 migrants as trainees within the Campania tobacco producing companies, to “support their exit from situations of serious exploitation”. Migrants on the six-month trainee scheme receive a monthly salary of €600 from Philip Morris.

    But the scheme appears to have little impact.

    Kofi, Sekou and Hassan were among 20 migrants hired under the agreement. Two of them said their duties and treatment were no different from other workers. At the end of the six months, Sekou said he was not hired regularly, but continued to work with no contract and low wages, in the same company that signed the agreement with Philip Morris.

    “If I didn’t go to work they wouldn’t pay me. I was sick, they wouldn’t pay me,” he said.

    In a statement, Huub Savelkouls, chief sustainability officer at Philip Morris International, said the company is committed to ensuring safety and fair conditions in its supply chain and had not come across the issues raised.

    “Working with the independent, not-for-profit organisation, Verité, we developed PMI’s Agricultural Labor Practices (ALP) code that currently reaches more than 350,000 farms worldwide. Farmers supplying PMI in Italy are contractually bound to respect the standards of the ALP code. They receive training and field teams conduct farm visits twice a month to monitor adherence to the ALP code,” he said.

    “Recognising the complex situation with migrant workers in Italian agriculture, PMI has taken supplementary steps to gain more visibility and prevent potential issues through a mechanism that provides direct channels for workers to raise concerns, specifically funding an independent helpline and direct engagement programme with farm workers.”

    On the IOM scheme, he said: “This work has been recognised by stakeholders and elements are being considered for continued action.”

    Simon Cleverly, group head of corporate affairs at British American Tobacco, said: “We recognise that agricultural supply chains and global business operations, by their nature, can present significant rights risks and we have robust policies and process in place to ensure these risks are minimised. Our supplier code of conduct sets out the minimum contractual standards we expect of all our suppliers worldwide, and specifically requires suppliers to ensure that their operations are free from unlawful migrant labour. This code also requires suppliers to provide all workers, including legal migrant workers, with fair wages and benefits, which comply with applicable minimum wage legislation. To support compliance, we have due diligence in place for all our third-party suppliers, including the industry-wide sustainable tobacco programme (STP).”

    He added: “Where we are made aware of alleged human rights abuses, via STP, our whistleblowing procedure or by any other channel, we investigate and where needed, take remedial action.”

    Simon Evans, group media relations manager at Imperial Tobacco, said: “Through the industry-wide sustainable tobacco programme we work with all of our tobacco suppliers to address good agricultural practices, improve labour practices and protect the environment. We purchase a very small amount of tobacco from the Campania region via a local third party supplier, with whom we are working to understand and resolve any issues.”

    ONT said technicians visited tobacco producers at least once a month to monitor compliance with contract and production regulations. It said it would not tolerate any kind of labour exploitation and would follow up the Guardian investigation.

    “If they [the abuses] happen to be attributable to farms associated with ONT, we will take the necessary measures, not only for the violation of the law, but above all to protect all our members who operate with total honesty and transparency.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/31/i-had-pain-all-over-my-body-italys-tainted-tobacco-industry?CMP=share_b
    #tabac #industrie_du_tabac #exploitation #travail #migrations #Caserta #Italie #néo-esclavagisme #Pouilles #Campania

    ping @albertocampiphoto @marty @reka @isskein

  • Sound system et résistance : la bande-son des émeutes noires de Brixton en 1981

    À l’occasion de l’anniversaire des émeutes de #Brixton du 10 au 12 avril 1981 (Brixton riots), PAM explore l’impact de la culture #sound_system à travers les événements qui ont transformé le paysage multiculturel britannique.

    http://pan-african-music.com/sound-system-et-resistance-la-bande-son-des-emeutes-noires-de-bri

    Et la #playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGt21q1AjuI&list=PLi5Wq55_9apMlGS3ssN60jvsRUpP1-otE

    #Angleterre #Londres #musique

  • How Huawei Wooed Europe With Sponsorships, Investments and Promises
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/technology/huawei-europe-china.html

    When new employees join Huawei, they are given books about the Chinese telecommunications company’s achievements. One featured accomplishment is how the company has thrived in Europe. A chapter in one of the books describes the hard work of Huawei employees to win over European telecom providers and sell them equipment that forms the backbone of mobile wireless networks. It says little about how the company has also subtly lobbied, promised jobs and made research investments to ingratiate (...)

    #British_Telecom_(BT) #Deutsche_Telekom #Huawei #MI6 #surveillance #concurrence #lobbying (...)

    ##British_Telecom__BT_ ##backdoor

  • #ACME - numéro spécial sur « Border Imperialism »

    Situating Border Imperialism
    Levi Gahman, Elise Hjalmarson, Amy Cohen, Sutapa Chattopadhyay, Enrica Rigo, Sarah Launius, Geoffrey Boyce, Adam Aguirre, Elsa Noterman, Eli Meyerhoff, Amílcar Sanatan

    Border Imperialism, Racial Capitalism, and Geographies of Deracination
    Levi Gahman, Elise Hjalmarson

    “Slavery hasn’t ended, it has just become modernized”: Border Imperialism and the Lived Realities of Migrant Farmworkers in #British_Columbia, #Canada
    Amy Cohen

    Borders re/make Bodies and Bodies are Made to Make Borders: Storying Migrant Trajectories
    Sutapa Chattopadhyay

    Re-gendering the Border: Chronicles of Women’s Resistance and Unexpected Alliances from the Mediterranean Border
    Enrica Rigo

    Drawing the Line: Spatial Strategies of Community and Resistance in Post-SB1070 #Arizona
    Geoffrey A Boyce, Sarah Launius, Adam O Aguirre

    Revolutionary Scholarship by Any Speed Necessary: Slow or Fast but for the End of This World
    Eli Meyerhoff, Elsa Noterman

    Borders and Marxist Politics in the Caribbean: An Interview with #Earl_Bousquet on the Workers Revolutionary Movement in St. Lucia
    Earl Bousquet, Interviewed by: Amílcar Sanatan

    #revue #frontières #impérialisme #déracinement #esclavagisme #capitalisme_racial #déracinement #Caraïbes #femmes #genre #résistance_féminine #USA #Etats-Unis #corps #agriculture #exploitation

  • BT removing Huawei equipment from parts of 4G network
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/05/bt-removing-huawei-equipment-from-parts-of-4g-network

    Head of MI6 had questioned Chinese firm’s involvement in UK telecoms infrastructure

    BT has confirmed it is removing Huawei equipment from key areas of its 4G network after concerns were raised about the Chinese firm’s presence in critical telecoms infrastructure. The company said the removals were merely the continuation of a policy which began when it purchased the mobile phone carrier EE in 2015, to ensure that both parts of the combined network ran on the same technology. Many peripheral (...)

    #British_Telecom_(BT) #Huawei #concurrence #Five_Eyes

    ##British_Telecom__BT_
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/97486755bf0f54357fff096867e6522e696c40dc/163_152_4606_2764/master/4606.jpg

  • Richard Semmler sur Twitter : ". #KarlreMarks: “What really is the #MiddleEast? – It’s the region between Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Turkey and the #BritishMuseum. There’s thousands of years of cultural exchange between us, based on the looting of our artifacts.” #Raubkunst #Kolonialismus" / Twitter
    https://twitter.com/rennsemmler/status/1066017461366075392

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXHcul337fI&feature=youtu.be

    #moyen_orient

  • British Airways : le vol de données était plus important que prévu
    https://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/british-airways-le-vol-de-donnees-etait-plus-important-que-prevu-39875659.htm#

    British Airways a révélé que la fuite massive de données qui a frappé des centaines de milliers de clients est plus importante qu’initialement annoncée. Jeudi, le transporteur britannique a déclaré que 185 000 clients supplémentaires pourraient s’être fait voler leurs informations personnelles suite à l’attaque. Au total, les cybercriminels à l’origine de l’attaque ont pu avoir accès à 77 000 autres dossiers de cartes de paiement. Ceux-ci contenaient les noms, adresses de facturation, adresses (...)

    #BritishAirways #carte #banque #hacking

  • Le contrôle des données numériques personnelles est un enjeu de liberté collective
    https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2018/10/19/le-controle-des-donnees-numeriques-personnelles-est-un-enjeu-de-liberte-coll

    Les révélations des failles de sécurité touchant des services en ligne s’accumulent. Et la collecte de nos données fait peser un risque collectif d’envergure. C’est une litanie. Facebook a admis, vendredi 12 octobre, que des données personnelles de 29 millions d’internautes avaient été subtilisées par des pirates informatiques. Quatre jours auparavant, son concurrent Google confiait qu’une faille avait exposé un demi-million d’utilisateurs de Google+. Il ne s’agit-là que des exemples les plus récents. (...)

    #Adidas #Altaba/Yahoo ! #BritishAirways #CambridgeAnalytica #Equifax #Target #AshleyMadison.com #Uber #algorithme #manipulation #bénéfices #BigData #hacking (...)

    ##Altaba/Yahoo_ ! ##profiling

  • L’#industrie_du_tabac manœuvre pour tracer les #cigarettes

    Du 8 au 10 octobre, s’est tenue à Genève la première réunion du Protocole pour éliminer le commerce illicite des produits du tabac. Le texte exige des États la mise en place d’un système de #traçabilité indépendant des industriels, accusés par le passé d’alimenter la #contrebande. Mais en coulisses, les cigarettiers manœuvrent pour jouer un rôle, allant jusqu’à recruter d’anciens policiers français.



    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/111018/l-industrie-du-tabac-manoeuvre-pour-tracer-les-cigarettes
    #tabac #OMS #lobby #Codentify #Sicpa #Burkina_Faso #Montenegro_Connection #Sicpatrace #Philip_Morris_International #Inexto #Impala #British_American_Tobacco #Philippe_Chatelain #PMI_Impact #Marlboro #Luis_Moreno_Ocampo #Jürgen_Storbeck #Europol #Alain_Juillet #Association_de_lutte_contre_le_commerce_illicite #ALCCI #Hervé_Pierre #Dominique_Lapprand #Tracfin #Bercy #Pierre_Moscovici

    Un article de @marty et photos @albertocampiphoto de @wereport

  • From the archive: British Library in London by Colin St John Wilson and MJ Long | Buildings | Architectural Review
    https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/archive/from-the-archive-british-library-in-london-by-colin-st-john-wilson-and-mj-long/10032085.article

    To understand the Government’s intention of building as soon as possible the first phase of a 2,000,000 sq ft library at an overall cost of £164,000,000 on the old Somers Town rail depot site west of St Pancras Station, a number of historical facts need to be recalled. Since its inception in 1753, the British Museum has always been under pressure to expand: there has never been enough room to house all the collections. When the Grenville Library was acquired in 1847, its volumes had to be stacked on the floor of the manuscripts department. By 1850 readers numbered nearly 80 000, an all but fourfold increase since the start of Robert Smirke’s building in 1823. Sydney Smirke’s great reading room (1852-57) was able for a while to contain this phenomenal growth which reached 600,000 printed books by 1860, 1,500,000 by 1888 and, with the installation of sliding presses, 3,000,000 on 46 miles of shelving by 1910. An annual rate of 1 ¼ miles of additional shelving in 1950 has risen today to an annual two miles or a million books every seven years. No wonder there are people who advocate the dismemberment of the great central library and the development of smaller specialist libraries linked electronically. or direct communication by computer between the library and people’s homes. To which two arguments have so far proved conclusive, that to microfilm every document (the new British Library will have room for 25,000,000 books) would cost more than a new building and that primary sources, in which the British Library is uniquely rich, will always want to be studied at first hand.

    #architecture #londres #british_library

  • BA customers’ credit card details ’probably already for sale’
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/07/ba-british-airways-customers-hacked-credit-card-details-dark-web

    Hacked data – including CVV codes – worth about £20m on dark web, cybersecurity experts say The credit card details of 380,000 British Airways customers could already be on sale on the internet after the airline suffered a “malicious” data breach, experts have warned. Customers were scrambling to change their credit card details on Friday, after BA said it was investigating the theft of passengers’ financial data from its website and app over a two-week period between 21 August and 5 September. (...)

    #BritishAirways #carte #hacking

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/375a540b1de3dae1ddd53ce8e1bf8e40d4c4c51a/0_102_3000_1800/master/3000.jpg