It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

The transformation of Hangzhou’s old steelworks into a park is a tribute to China’s industrial past in a city of the future The congressional hearing about Chinese AI engine DeepSeek held in the US this April has propelled Hangzhou, the heart of China’s new digital economy, to the headlines. With companies such as DeepSeek, Unitree and Alibaba – whose payment app allowed me to get on the metro without needing to buy a ticket – headquartered in Hangzhou, China’s future in AI, robotics and automation is emanating from this city. Getting off the metro in the suburban area of Gongshu, the sun was shining on an old steelworks, overgrown with vines and flowers now that it is being transformed by Jiakun Architects and TLS Landscape Architecture into the Grand Canal Steelworks Park. The unfolding trade war might help to accelerate China’s journey into an automated future, leaving the world of factories behind, yet this new public space shows an impulse to commemorate the country’s economic history, and the forces that have shaped its contemporary built environment. Starting in Hangzhou and travelling more than 1,700km to Beijing, the Grand Canal is an engineering project built 2,500 years ago to connect the different regions of eastern China. The country’s geography means rivers flow from west to east: from higher elevations, culminating in the Himalayas, to the basin that is the country’s eastern seaboard. Historically, it was difficult to transport goods from mercantile centres in the south, including Hangzhou and Suzhou, to the political centre in Beijing up north. As a civil engineering project, the Grand Canal rivals the Great Wall, but if the Great Wall aims to protect China from the outside, the Grand Canal articulates Chinese commerce from the inside. The historic waterway has been an important conduit of economic and cultural exchange, enabling the movement of people and goods such as grain, silk, wine, salt and gravel across the country. It became a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2014. The state‑owned enterprise collective was founded, and the physical facility of Hangzhou steelworks built, in the 1950s during the Great Leap Forward, when China strove for self‑sufficiency, and wended its way through the country’s economic trajectory: first the economic chaos of the 1960s, then the reforms and opening up in the 1980s. Steel remains an important industry today in China, home to more than half of the world’s production, but the listing of the Grand Canal enabled city leaders to move production to a new site and decommission the Hangzhou steelworks. External mandates, including entry into the World Trade Organization, the Beijing Olympics and UNESCO listings, have been instrumentalised in the country to pursue a range of internal interests, particularly economical and real estate ones.  In 2016, the factory was shut down in 150 days, in what the company describes as a ‘heroic’ effort, and the site attracted tourists of industrial ruins. In the competition brief, Hangzhou planners asked for ‘as much of the existing blast furnaces and buildings’ as possible to be preserved. When I arrived in China in 2008, Chinese cities were notorious for heritage demolition, but today urban planners and architects increasingly work to preserve historical buildings. Just like several industrial sites in Beijing and Shanghai have been transformed into major public and cultural spaces in the past decade, in the Yangtze River Delta – of which Hangzhou is a major hub – several industrial sites along the Grand Canal’s course are being given a new lease of life. Today, the three blast furnaces of Hangzhou steelworks remain, with the silhouettes of their smokestacks easily recognisable from a distance. The project preserves as much as possible of the aesthetics of a steel mill with none of the danger or dust, ready to welcome instead new community facilities and cultural programmes in a vast and restored piece of landscape. Situated in a former working‑class district that has been gentrifying and welcoming young families, the new park is becoming a popular venue for music festivals, flower viewing in springtime and year‑round picnics – when I visited, parents were teaching their children to ride a bicycle, and students from Zhejiang University, about a kilometre from the park, were having lunch on the grass. New programmes accommodated in the old coke oven and steel mills will include a series of exhibition halls and spaces welcoming a wide range of cultural and artistic workshops as well as events – the project’s first phase has just completed but tenant organisations have not yet moved in, and works are ongoing to the north of the park. On the day of my visit, a student art exhibition was on display near one of the furnaces, with works made from detritus from the site, including old packing containers. The rehabilitated buildings also provide a range of commercial units, where cafés, restaurants, shops, a bookshop, ice cream shop and a gym have already opened their doors to visitors.  Several structures were deemed structurally unsafe and required demolition, such as the old iron casting building. The architects proposed to partially reconstruct it on its original footprint; the much more open structure, built with reclaimed bricks, now houses a semi‑outdoor garden. Material choices evoke the site’s industrial past: weathered steel, exposed concrete and large expanses of glazing dominate the landscape. The widespread use of red, including in an elevated walkway that traverses the park – at times vaguely reminiscent of a Japanese torii gate in the space below – gives a warm and reassuring earthiness to the otherwise industrial colour palette. Elements selected by the designers underwent sanitisation and detoxification before being reused. The landscaping includes old machinery parts and boulders; recuperated steel panels are for instance inlaid into the paving while pipes for pouring molten steel have been turned into a fountain. The train tracks that once transported material continue to run through the site, providing paths in between the new patches of vegetation, planted with local grasses as well as Japanese maples, camphors and persimmon trees. As Jiawen Chen from TLS describes it, the aesthetic feels ‘wild, but not weedy or abandoned’. The landscape architects’ inspiration came from the site itself after the steelworks’ closure, she explains, once vegetation had begun to reclaim it. Contaminated soil was replaced with clean local soil – at a depth between 0.5 and 1.5 metres, in line with Chinese regulations. The removed soil was sent to specialised facilities for purification, while severely contaminated layers were sealed with concrete. TLS proposed phytoremediation (using plants to detoxify soil) in selected areas of the site ‘as a symbolic and educational gesture’, Chen explains, but ‘the client preferred to be cautious’. From the eastern end of the park, hiking trails lead to the mountain and its Buddhist temples. The old steel mill’s grounds fade seamlessly into the hills. Standing in what it is still a construction site, a sign suggests there will soon be a rowing centre here.  While Jiakun Architects and TLS have prioritised making the site palatable as a public space, the project also brings to life a history that many are likely to have forgotten. Throughout, the park incorporates different elements of China’s economic history, including the life of the Grand Canal and the industrial era. There is, for example, a Maoist steelworker painted on the mural of one of the cafés, as well as historical photographs and drawings of the steelworks peppering the site, framed and hung on the walls. The ambition might be in part to pay homage to steelworkers, but it is hard to imagine them visiting. Gongshu, like the other suburbs of Hangzhou, has seen rapid increases in its property prices.  The steelworks were built during the Maoist era, a time of ‘battling with earth, battling with heaven, battling with humanity’, to borrow Mao’s own words. Ordinary people melted down pots and pans to surpass the UK in steel production, and industry was seen as a sharp break from a traditional Chinese way of life, in which humans aspire to live in harmony with their environment. The priorities of the government today are more conservative, seeking to create a garden city to attract engineers and their families. Hangzhou has long represented the balmy and sophisticated life of China’s south, a land of rice and fish. To the west of the city, not far from the old steelworks, are the ecologically protected Xixi wetlands, and Hangzhou’s urban planning exemplifies the Chinese principle of 天人合一, or nature and humankind as one.  Today, Hangzhou is only 45 minutes from Shanghai by high‑speed train. The two cities feel like extensions of one another, an urban region of 100 million people. The creation of the Grand Canal Steelworks Park reflects the move away from heavy industry that Chinese cities such as Hangzhou are currently making, shifting towards a supposedly cleaner knowledge‑driven economy. Yet the preservation of the steelworks epitomises the sentimental attitude towards the site’s history and acts as a reminder that today’s middle classes are the children of yesterday’s steelworkers, drinking coffee and playing with their own children in grassy lawns next to shuttered blast furnaces.  The park’s second phase is already nearing completion, and the competition for the nearby Grand Canal Museum was won by Herzog & de Meuron in 2020 – the building is under construction, and should open at the end of this year. It is a district rich in history, but the city is resolutely turned towards the future.  2025-06-02 Reuben J Brown Share AR May 2025CircularityBuy Now

Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More:

The report, Europe’s Moonshot Moment, found that the continent has over 280 software companies generating more than €100 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR). These scaleups include the likes of Spotify, Revolut, Adyen, and Vinted. However, European software businesses that reach the €100 million ARR threshold take 15 years on average to get there. That’s five years longer than their US peers, the report found. Europe also lags in birthing software giants. While 5–10% of US firms reaching €100 million in ARR subsequently scale to €1 billion, fewer than 3% of their European peers reach that milestone. The report highlighted some of the reasons for this stalled growth: fragmented markets, conservative corporate norms, and a slower flow of late-stage capital relative to early-stage investment. Turning point? Register Now Despite the hurdles, the report’s authors are confident that all the ingredients for Europe’s success in software are now in place. “Europe already holds the essentials to create the world’s next generation of software champions: deep talent pools, vibrant founder networks, and a rapidly maturing capital base,” said Ruben Schaubroeck, senior partner at McKinsey. While Europe lost out to Silicon Valley firms like Google and Microsoft in the early internet era, emerging technologies like AI may offer a new opening for the region’s tech startups. Geopolitical shifts could also drive governments to invest in local tech ecosystems and rethink digital sovereignty, said the report. “There’s no denying that European tech has faced structural barriers, but we’re at a genuine inflection point,” Phill Robinson, CEO and co-founder at Boardwave, told TNW. “New technology arenas, geopolitics, and an evolving operating environment are creating a unique opportunity for Europe to boost innovation.” Now Europe must turn that potential into profits, the report argues. To that end, it suggests five key interventions to boost Europe’s software ecosystem: Expand late-stage funding Encourage experienced founders to start new companies Make it easier for sales and marketing teams to work across borders and help startups grow faster Encourage more large firms in Europe to buy software from European startups by offering government support or financial incentives Strengthen public-private partnerships to de-risk new technologies Scaling up European tech The McKinsey/Boardwave report comes hot on the heels of the EU’s landmark Startup and Scaleup Strategy, launched last week. The plan set out several reforms designed to remove barriers to growth for the bloc’s early-stage companies. “If implemented boldly, and most importantly quickly, it can help Europe move from fragmented success stories to systemic, continent-wide scale; otherwise, we risk being left behind,” said Robinson, commenting on the new strategy. The EU’s proposal includes provisions for a long-awaited “28th regime,” which would allow companies to operate under a single set of rules across the 27 member states. It is intended to reduce headaches around taxes, employment rules, and insolvency. Robinson said he believes the EU’s new strategy will strengthen Europe’s software ecosystem by making it easier to operate across borders. “We need to act as one innovation ecosystem, not 27 different ones,” he said. “That’s what makes this Europe’s moonshot moment. If we connect and act now, we can lead. And not just in Europe, but globally.” Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with

Few issues in the U.S. today are as controversial as diversity, equity, and inclusion—commonly referred to as DEI. Although the term didn’t come into common usage until the 21st century, DEI is best understood as the latest stage in a long American project. Its egalitarian principles are seen in America’s founding documents, and its roots lie in landmark 20th-century efforts such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and affirmative action policies, as well as movements for racial justice, gender equity, disability rights, veterans, and immigrants. These movements sought to expand who gets to participate in economic, educational, and civic life. DEI programs, in many ways, are their legacy. Critics argue that DEI is antidemocratic, that it fosters ideological conformity, and that it leads to discriminatory initiatives, which they say disadvantage white people and undermine meritocracy. Those defending DEI argue just the opposite: that it encourages critical thinking and promotes democracy—and that attacks on DEI amount to a retreat from long-standing civil rights law. Yet missing from much of the debate is a crucial question: What are the tangible costs and benefits of DEI? Who benefits, who doesn’t, and what are the broader effects on society and the economy? As a sociologist, I believe any productive conversation about DEI should be rooted in evidence, not ideology. So let’s look at the research. Who gains from DEI? In the corporate world, DEI initiatives are intended to promote diversity, and research consistently shows that diversity is good for business. Companies with more diverse teams tend to perform better across several key metrics, including revenue, profitability, and worker satisfaction. Businesses with diverse workforces also have an edge in innovation, recruitment, and competitiveness, research shows. The general trend holds for many types of diversity, including age, race, and ethnicity, and gender. A focus on diversity can also offer profit opportunities for businesses seeking new markets. Two-thirds of American consumers consider diversity when making their shopping choices, a 2021 survey found. So-called “inclusive consumers” tend to be female, younger, and more ethnically and racially diverse. Ignoring their values can be costly: When Target backed away from its DEI efforts, the resulting backlash contributed to a sales decline. But DEI goes beyond corporate policy. At its core, it’s about expanding access to opportunities for groups historically excluded from full participation in American life. From this broader perspective, many 20th-century reforms can be seen as part of the DEI arc. Consider higher education. Many elite U.S. universities refused to admit women until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Columbia, the last Ivy League university to go co-ed, started admitting women in 1982. Since the advent of affirmative action, women haven’t just closed the gender gap in higher education—they outpace men in college completion across all racial groups. DEI policies have particularly benefited women, especially white women, by expanding workforce access. Similarly, the push to desegregate American universities was followed by an explosion in the number of Black college students—a number that has increased by 125% since the 1970s, twice the national rate. With college gates open to more people than ever, overall enrollment at U.S. colleges has quadrupled since 1965. While there are many reasons for this, expanding opportunity no doubt plays a role. And a better-educated population has had significant implications for productivity and economic growth. The 1965 Immigration Act also exemplifies DEI’s impact. It abolished racial and national quotas, enabling the immigration of more diverse populations, including from Asia, Africa, southern and eastern Europe, and Latin America. Many of these immigrants were highly educated, and their presence has boosted U.S. productivity and innovation. Ultimately, the U.S. economy is more profitable and productive as a result of immigrants. What does DEI cost? While DEI generates returns for many businesses and institutions, it does come with costs. In 2020, corporate America spent an estimated $7.5 billion on DEI programs. And in 2023, the federal government spent more than $100 million on DEI, including $38.7 million by the Department of Health and Human Services and another $86.5 million by the Department of Defense. The government will no doubt be spending less on DEI in 2025. One of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term was to sign an executive order banning DEI practices in federal agencies—one of several anti-DEI executive orders currently facing legal challenges. More than 30 states have also introduced or enacted bills to limit or entirely restrict DEI in recent years. Central to many of these policies is the belief that diversity lowers standards, replacing meritocracy with mediocrity. But a large body of research disputes this claim. For example, a 2023 McKinsey & Company report found that companies with higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity will likely financially outperform those with the least diversity by at least 39%. Similarly, concerns that DEI in science and technology education leads to lowering standards aren’t backed up by scholarship. Instead, scholars are increasingly pointing out that disparities in performance are linked to built-in biases in courses themselves. That said, legal concerns about DEI are rising. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice have recently warned employers that some DEI programs may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reverse discrimination claims, particularly from white men, are increasing, and legal experts expect the Supreme Court to lower the burden of proof needed by complainants for such cases. The issue remains legally unsettled. But while the cases work their way through the courts, women and people of color will continue to shoulder much of the unpaid volunteer work that powers corporate DEI initiatives. This pattern raises important equity concerns within DEI itself. What lies ahead for DEI? People’s fears of DEI are partly rooted in demographic anxiety. Since the U.S. Census Bureau projected in 2008 that non-Hispanic white people would become a minority in the U.S by the year 2042, nationwide news coverage has amplified white fears of displacement. Research indicates many white men experience this change as a crisis of identity and masculinity, particularly amid economic shifts such as the decline of blue-collar work. This perception aligns with research showing that white Americans are more likely to believe DEI policies disadvantage white men than white women. At the same time, in spite of DEI initiatives, women and people of color are most likely to be underemployed and living in poverty regardless of how much education they attain. The gender wage gap remains stark: In 2023, women working full time earned a median weekly salary of $1,005 compared with $1,202 for men—just 83.6% of what men earned. Over a 40-year career, that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost earnings. For Black and Latina women, the disparities are even worse, with one source estimating lifetime losses at $976,800 and $1.2 million, respectively. Racism, too, carries an economic toll. A 2020 analysis from Citi found that systemic racism has cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion since 2000. The same analysis found that addressing these disparities could have boosted Black wages by $2.7 trillion, added up to $113 billion in lifetime earnings through higher college enrollment, and generated $13 trillion in business revenue, creating 6.1 million jobs annually. In a moment of backlash and uncertainty, I believe DEI remains a vital if imperfect tool in the American experiment of inclusion. Rather than abandon it, the challenge now, from my perspective, is how to refine it: grounding efforts not in slogans or fear, but in fairness and evidence. Rodney Coates is a professor of critical race and ethnic studies at Miami University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Architects Registration Board (ARB) has published an action plan outlining changes to the way in which trainee architects gain and record their professional practical experience, following recommendations made by its independent Professional Practical Experience Commission. The reforms include the introduction of a new co-ordinating role for learning providers and the creation of a standardised record of competency (ROC) for trainees. The measures are intended to improve access to high-quality and consistent professional experience, and to address concerns over the uneven and sometimes unsupported nature of the current process. ARB intends to work with architectural education providers and other stakeholders through a series of focus groups to develop the new co-ordinating role. The responsibilities of this role will be detailed in ARB’s Standards for Learning Providers and its accreditation handbook, and will be subject to public consultation. The new ROC is intended to provide a more structured and consistent way for trainees to record their experience. Minimum requirements for evidencing practical experience will be set by ARB. ARB has said the changes seek to shift some of the responsibility and risk currently borne by trainees onto institutions better placed to provide oversight. The intention is to prioritise outcomes and provide a more transparent and supportive framework for those seeking registration. Alan Kershaw, chair of ARB, said: “Professional practical experience is central to a trainee’s journey to becoming an architect and achieving professional registration. The plan that we have set out today recognises the vital role learning providers play in shaping how aspiring architects gain the experience they need. “The new co-ordinating role will need to work for all learning providers, so we’re going to design it with them to ensure it is flexible but also, crucially, effective for trainees.” The action plan accepts all but one of the commission’s recommendations. ARB does not currently plan to make continuing professional development (CPD) in mentoring a mandatory requirement, but has acknowledged the role mentoring could play in supporting wider cultural change across the profession. The regulator is exploring ways to help architects develop mentoring skills. A full breakdown of the actions and implementation timelines is available on the ARB website. ARB is inviting stakeholders to join the development process via its Architectural Educators Engagement Network.

The astounding drop in violent crime that began in the 1990s and extended through the mid-2010s is one of the most important — and most underappreciated — good news stories of recent memory. That made its reversal during the pandemic so worrying.In the first full year of the pandemic, the FBI tallied 22,134 murders nationwide, up from 16,669 in 2019 — an increase of roughly 34 percent, the sharpest one-year rise in modern crime record-keeping. In 2021, Philadelphia alone recorded a record 562 homicides, while Baltimore experienced a near-record 337 murders. Between 2019 and 2020, the average number of weekly emergency department visits for gunshots increased by 37 percent, and largely stayed high through the following year. By the 2024 election, for the first time in awhile, violent crime was a major political issue in the US. A Pew survey that year found that 58 percent of Americans believed crime should be a top priority for the president and Congress, up from 47 percent in 2021. And yet even as the presidential campaign was unfolding, the violent crime spike of the pandemic had already subsided — and crime rates have kept dropping. The FBI’s 2023 crime report found that murder was down nearly 12 percent year over year, and in 2024 it kept falling to roughly 16,700 murders, on par with pre-pandemic levels. The early numbers for 2025 are so promising that Jeff Asher, one of the best independent analysts on crime, recently asked in a piece whether this year could have the lowest murder rate in US history.All of which raises two questions: What’s driving a decrease in crime every bit as sharp as the pandemic-era increase? And why do so many of us find it so hard to believe?The crime wave crashesWe shouldn’t jump to conclusions about this year’s crime rates based on the early data, especially since we’re just now beginning the summer, when violent crime almost always rises. Crime data in the US is also patchy and slow — I can tell you how many soybeans the US raised in March, but I can’t tell you how many people have been murdered in the US this year. But what we can tell looks very good. The Real-Time Crime Index, an academic project that collects crime data from more than 380 police agencies covering nearly 100 million people, estimates there were 1,488 murders in the US this year through March, compared to an estimated 1,899 over the same months last year. That’s a decrease of nearly 22 percent. Violent crime overall is down by about 11 percent. Motor vehicle theft, which became an epidemic during the pandemic, is down by over 26 percent. Peer down to the local level, and the picture just keeps getting better. In Baltimore, which The Wire made synonymous with violent, drug-related crime, homicides fell to 199 last year, its best showing in over a decade. As of early May, the city had 45 murders, down another third from the same period last year. City emergency rooms that were once full of gunshot victims have gone quiet.How much lower could it go nationally? The record low homicide rate, at least since national records started being kept in 1960, is 4.45 per 100,000 in 2014. So far this year, according to Asher, murder is down in 25 of the 30 cities that reported the most murders in 2023. Asher argues that if the numbers hold, “a 10 percent or more decline in murder nationally in 2025 would roughly tie 2014 for the lowest murder rate ever recorded.”What’s behind the drop?In short: The pandemic led to a huge increase in violent crime, and as the pandemic waned, so did the wave.The closure of schools during the pandemic, especially in already higher-crime cities in the Northeast, meant far more young men — who are statistically more likely to be either perpetrators of violent crime or victims of it — on the streets. The closure of social services left fewer resources for them to draw on; and the sheer stress of a once-in-a-lifetime health catastrophe set everyone on edge. The murder of George Floyd in spring 2020 led to a collapse in community trust in policing, which in turn seemed to lead to less aggressive policing altogether. As the pandemic eased, though, those buffers came back, providing a natural brake on violent crime.But the government, from the national level down to cities, also took direct actions to stem the flood of violence. The White House under President Joe Biden poured hundreds of millions of dollars into community violence interruption programs, which aim to break the cycle of retribution that can lead to homicide. Baltimore’s Group Violence Reduction Strategy has brought together community groups and law enforcement to deter the people considered most likely to get involved in gun violence. And the erosion in police forces nationwide that occurred during the pandemic has largely stopped. The situation is far from perfect. Even though Floyd’s murder triggered a nationwide reckoning around police violence, recent data shows that police killings kept increasing, in part because fear of crime often stopped momentum around reforms. Here in New York, even as overall crime on the subways has fallen to historical lows, felony assaults on the trains have kept rising, fueling fears of lawlessness. Why can’t we believe it?As Memorial Day weekend marks the start of summer, the next few months will tell whether the pandemic was truly just a blip in the long-term reduction in violent crime. But what we can say is most people don’t seem to notice the positive trends. An October 2024 poll by Gallup found that 64 percent of Americans believed there was more crime nationwide than the year before, even though by that time in 2024, the post-pandemic crime drop was well under way. But such results aren’t surprising. One of the most reliable results in polling is that if you ask Americans whether crime is rising, they’ll say yes. Astonishingly, in 23 of 27 national surveys done by Gallup since 1993, Americans reported that they thought crime nationwide was rising — even though most of those surveys were done during the long crime decline. Crime is one of the best examples we have of bad news bias. By definition, a murder is an outlier event that grabs our attention, inevitably leading the nightly local news. Sometimes, as during the pandemic, that bias can match reality. But if we fail to adjust to what is actually happening around us — not just what we think is happening — it won’t just make us think our cities are more dangerous than they really are. It’ll sap energy for the reforms that can really make a difference. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Flyalone - Adobe News Labour puts Humphrey AI to work for council admin A tool built on the government’s Humphrey AI toolset is being piloted by 25 councils to take notes during meetings Published: 23 May 2025 15:45 The UK government has announced that its artificial intelligence (AI) suite, Humphrey, is being trialled by a number of local councils. Its AI tool, Minute, takes notes in meetings, and was recently used in one chaired by prime minister Keir Starmer. Part of Humphrey, the package of AI tools built to help civil servants deliver for ministers and the public more effectively, uses generative AI to turn meetings into notes, and provides tools for correcting summaries. The government found that early tests using Minute showed that officials saved an hour of admin per one-hour meeting. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said Minute can help speed up actions after planning meetings, allowing officers to focus on the task at hand, rather than paperwork, and make informed decisions to get homes built. It’s currently being trailed by 25 local councils. Among the ways it’s being used is to help streamline burdensome admin tasks in the planning process as part of the government’s plans to build 1.5 million homes by 2030. Lords minister for housing and local government Sharon Taylor said: “Local councils are on the frontline of housing delivery, and we’re backing them with cutting-edge AI technology like Minute so officers can spend less time buried in admin and more time helping to get Britain building. “This is alongside our landmark reforms to deliver 1.5 million homes, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will get working people and families into secure homes and boost economic growth right across the country,” she said. Read more stories about public sector AI Humphrey AI tool powers Scottish Parliament consultation: AI-powered Consult tool has helped the Scottish Parliament to organise feedback from a public consultation into themes. Major obstacles facing Labour’s AI opportunity action plan: Skills, data held in legacy tech and a lack of leadership are among the areas discussed during a recent Public Accounts Committee session. Minute can also be used to take notes in meetings between social care workers and their supervisors, allowing workers to focus on offering more support instead of being bogged down by bureaucracy.   The Minute trial ties in with a broader government initiative to help local councils use technology to improve essential services they are responsible for delivering to local residents. To fulfil one of the actions in the 50-point AI Opportunities Plan of Action, which was published in January, the government has also introduced an AI Knowledge Hub for sharing examples of how local councils are using technology so others can learn from them – such as an AI assistant that speeds up the reporting of fly-tipping and graffiti in central London. In 2024, a Local Government Association (LGA) survey found that the majority of councils who took part in the poll (85%) were using or exploring how they would use AI. The areas where most respondents had realised benefits from using AI were staff productivity (35%), service efficiencies (32%) and cost savings (22%). However, the LGA reported that the five biggest barriers to deploying AI identified by respondents were a lack of funding (64%), a lack of staff capabilities (53%), a lack of staff capacity (50%), a lack of sufficient governance and a lack of clear use cases (41% each). The government’s own State of digital government review, published earlier this year, reported that each of the 320 local authorities in England negotiate technology contracts with big tech companies independently – when many are buying exactly the same tools – making this spending much less effective. The trials with AI-based tools built on Humphrey and the AI Knowledge Hub represent an attempt by the government to reduce the barriers to deploying AI across the public sector. AI and digital government minister Feryal Clark said: “From parking permits and planning permission, local councils handle some of the services that impact our daily lives most. For too long, they have been left to fend for themselves when keeping up with rapid innovations in AI and digital technology – when we know it has huge potential to help solve many of the challenges they face. Clark said the government was going to work with local councils to help them buy and build the technology they need to deliver Labour’s Plan for Change and support their local communities more effectively.  In The Current Issue: UK critical systems at risk from ‘digital divide’ created by AI threats UK at risk of Russian cyber and physical attacks as Ukraine seeks peace deal Standard Chartered grounds AI ambitions in data governance Download Current Issue SAP Sapphire 2025: Developers take centre stage as AI integration deepens – CW Developer Network Microsoft entices developers to build more Windows AI apps – Cliff Saran's Enterprise blog View All Blogs

Essex Police has not properly considered the potentially discriminatory impacts of its live facial recognition (LFR) use, according to documents obtained by Big Brother Watch and shared with Computer Weekly. While the force claims in an equality impact assessment (EIA) that “Essex Police has carefully considered issues regarding bias and algorithmic injustice”, privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch said the document – obtained under Freedom of Information (FoI) rules – shows it has likely failed to fulfil its public sector equality duty (PSED) to consider how its policies and practices could be discriminatory. The campaigners highlighted how the force is relying on false comparisons to other algorithms and “parroting misleading claims” from the supplier about the LFR system’s lack of bias. For example, Essex Police said that when deploying LFR, it will set the system threshold “at 0.6 or above, as this is the level whereby equitability of the rate of false positive identification across all demographics is achieved”. However, this figure is based on the National Physical Laboratory’s (NPL) testing of NEC’s Neoface V4 LFR algorithm deployed by the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police, which Essex Police does not use. Instead, Essex Police has opted to use an algorithm developed by Israeli biometrics firm Corsight, whose chief privacy officer, Tony Porter, was formerly the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner until January 2021. Highlighting testing of the Corsight_003 algorithm conducted in June 2022 by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the EIA also claims it has “a bias differential FMR [False Match Rate] of 0.0006 overall, the lowest of any tested within NIST at the time of writing, according to the supplier”. However, looking at the NIST website, where all of the testing data is publicly shared, there is no information to support the figure cited by Corsight, or its claim to essentially have the least biased algorithm available. A separate FoI response to Big Brother Watch confirmed that, as of 16 January 2025, Essex Police had not conducted any “formal or detailed” testing of the system itself, or otherwise commissioned a third party to do so. Essex Police's lax approach to assessing the dangers of a controversial and dangerous new form of surveillance has put the rights of thousands at risk Jake Hurfurt, Big Brother Watch “Looking at Essex Police’s EIA, we are concerned about the force’s compliance with its duties under equality law, as the reliance on shaky evidence seriously undermines the force’s claims about how the public will be protected against algorithmic bias,” said Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch. “Essex Police’s lax approach to assessing the dangers of a controversial and dangerous new form of surveillance has put the rights of thousands at risk. This slapdash scrutiny of their intrusive facial recognition system sets a worrying precedent. “Facial recognition is notorious for misidentifying women and people of colour, and Essex Police’s willingness to deploy the technology without testing it themselves raises serious questions about the force’s compliance with equalities law. Essex Police should immediately stop their use of facial recognition surveillance.” The need for UK police forces deploying facial recognition to consider how their use of the technology could be discriminatory was highlighted by a legal challenge brought against South Wales Police by Cardiff resident Ed Bridges. In August 2020, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the use of LFR by the force was unlawful because the privacy violations it entailed were “not in accordance” with legally permissible restrictions on Bridges’ Article 8 privacy rights; it did not conduct an appropriate data protection impact assessment (DPIA); and it did not comply with its PSED to consider how its policies and practices could be discriminatory. The judgment specifically found that the PSED is a “duty of process and not outcome”, and requires public bodies to take reasonable steps “to make enquiries about what may not yet be known to a public authority about the potential impact of a proposed decision or policy on people with the relevant characteristics, in particular for present purposes race and sex”. Big Brother Watch said equality assessments must rely on “sufficient quality evidence” to back up the claims being made and ultimately satisfy the PSED, but that the documents obtained do not demonstrate the force has had “due regard” for equalities. Academic Karen Yeung, an interdisciplinary professor at Birmingham Law School and School of Computer Science, told Computer Weekly that, in her view, the EIA is “clearly inadequate”. She also criticised the document for being “incoherent”, failing to look at the systemic equalities impacts of the technology, and relying exclusively on testing of entirely different software algorithms used by other police forces trained on different populations: “This does not, in my view, fulfil the requirements of the public sector equality duty. It is a document produced from a cut-and-paste exercise from the largely irrelevant material produced by others.” Computer Weekly contacted Essex Police about every aspect of the story. “We take our responsibility to meet our public sector equality duty very seriously, and there is a contractual requirement on our LFR partner to ensure sufficient testing has taken place to ensure the software meets the specification and performance outlined in the tender process,” said a spokesperson. “There have been more than 50 deployments of our LFR vans, scanning 1.7 million faces, which have led to more than 200 positive alerts, and nearly 70 arrests. “To date, there has been one false positive, which, when reviewed, was established to be as a result of a low-quality photo uploaded onto the watchlist and not the result of bias issues with the technology. This did not lead to an arrest or any other unlawful action because of the procedures in place to verify all alerts. This issue has been resolved to ensure it does not occur again.” The spokesperson added that the force is also committed to carrying out further assessment of the software and algorithms, with the evaluation of deployments and results being subject to an independent academic review. “As part of this, we have carried out, and continue to do so, testing and evaluation activity in conjunction with the University of Cambridge. The NPL have recently agreed to carry out further independent testing, which will take place over the summer. The company have also achieved an ISO 42001 certification,” said the spokesperson. “We are also liaising with other technical specialists regarding further testing and evaluation activity.” However, the force did not comment on why it was relying on the testing of a completely different algorithm in its EIA, or why it had not conducted or otherwise commissioned its own testing before operationally deploying the technology in the field. Computer Weekly followed up Essex Police for clarification on when the testing with Cambridge began, as this is not mentioned in the EIA, but received no response by time of publication. Although Essex Police and Corsight claim the facial recognition algorithm in use has “a bias differential FMR of 0.0006 overall, the lowest of any tested within NIST at the time of writing”, there is no publicly available data on NIST’s website to support this claim. Drilling down into the demographic split of false positive rates shows, for example, that there is a factor of 100 more false positives in West African women than for Eastern European men. While this is an improvement on the previous two algorithms submitted for testing by Corsight, other publicly available data held by NIST undermines Essex Police’s claim in the EIA that the “algorithm is identified by NIST as having the lowest bias variance between demographics”. Looking at another metric held by NIST – FMR Max/Min, which refers to the ratio between demographic groups that give the most and least false positives – it essentially represents how inequitable the error rates are across different age groups, sexes and ethnicities. In this instance, smaller values represent better performance, with the ratio being an estimate of how many times more false positives can be expected in one group over another. According to the NIST webpage for “demographic effects” in facial recognition algorithms, the Corsight algorithm has an FMR Max/Min of 113(22), meaning there are at least 21 algorithms that display less bias. For comparison, the least biased algorithm according to NIST results belongs to a firm called Idemia, which has an FMR Max/Min of 5(1). However, like Corsight, the highest false match rate for Idemia’s algorithm was for older West African women. Computer Weekly understands this is a common problem with many of the facial recognition algorithms NIST tests because this group is not typically well-represented in the underlying training data of most firms. Computer Weekly also confirmed with NIST that the FMR metric cited by Corsight relates to one-to-one verification, rather than the one-to-many situation police forces would be using it in. This is a key distinction, because if 1,000 people are enrolled in a facial recognition system that was built on one-to-one verification, then the false positive rate will be 1,000 times larger than the metrics held by NIST for FMR testing. “If a developer implements 1:N (one-to-many) search as N 1:1 comparisons, then the likelihood of a false positive from a search is expected to be proportional to the false match for the 1:1 comparison algorithm,” said NIST scientist Patrick Grother. “Some developers do not implement 1:N search that way.” Commenting on the contrast between this testing methodology and the practical scenarios the tech will be deployed in, Birmingham Law School’s Yeung said one-to-one is for use in stable environments to provide admission to spaces with limited access, such as airport passport gates, where only one person’s biometric data is scrutinised at a time. “One-to-many is entirely different – it’s an entirely different process, an entirely different technical challenge, and therefore cannot typically achieve equivalent levels of accuracy,” she said. Computer Weekly contacted Corsight about every aspect of the story related to its algorithmic testing, including where the “0.0006” figure is drawn from and its various claims to have the “least biased” algorithm. “The facts presented in your article are partial, manipulated and misleading,” said a company spokesperson. “Corsight AI’s algorithms have been tested by numerous entities, including NIST, and have been proven to be the least biased in the industry in terms of gender and ethnicity. This is a major factor for our commercial and government clients.” However, Corsight was either unable or unwilling to specify which facts are “partial, manipulated or misleading” in response to Computer Weekly’s request for clarification. Computer Weekly also contacted Corsight about whether it has done any further testing by running N one-to-one comparisons, and whether it has changed the system’s threshold settings for detecting a match to suppress the false positive rate, but received no response on these points. While most facial recognition developers submit their algorithms to NIST for testing on an annual or bi-annual basis, Corsight last submitted an algorithm in mid-2022. Computer Weekly contacted Corsight about why this was the case, given that most algorithms in NIST testing show continuous improvement with each submission, but again received no response on this point. The Essex Police EIA also highlights testing of the Corsight algorithm conducted in 2022 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), claiming it demonstrated “Corsight’s capability to perform equally across all demographics”. However, Big Brother Watch’s Hurfurt highlighted that the DHS study focused on bias in the context of true positives, and did not assess the algorithm for inequality in false positives. This is a key distinction for the testing of LFR systems, as false negatives where the system fails to recognise someone will likely not lead to incorrect stops or other adverse effects, whereas a false positive where the system confuses two people could have more severe consequences for an individual. The DHS itself also publicly came out against Corsight’s representation of the test results, after the firm claimed in subsequent marketing materials that “no matter how you look at it, Corsight is ranked #1. #1 in overall recognition, #1 in dark skin, #1 in Asian, #1 in female”. Speaking with IVPM in August 2023, DHS said: “We do not know what this claim, being ‘#1’ is referring to.” The department added that the rules of the testing required companies to get their claims cleared through DHS to ensure they do not misrepresent their performance. In its breakdown of the test results, IVPM noted that systems of multiple other manufacturers achieved similar results to Corsight. The company did not respond to a request for comment about the DHS testing. Computer Weekly contacted Essex Police about all the issues raised around Corsight testing, but received no direct response to these points from the force. While Essex Police claimed in its EIA that it “also sought advice from their own independent Data and Digital Ethics Committee in relation to their use of LFR generally”, meeting minutes obtained via FoI rules show that key impacts had not been considered. For example, when one panel member questioned how LFR deployments could affect community events or protests, and how the force could avoid the technology having a “chilling presence”, the officer present (whose name has been redacted from the document) said “that’s a pretty good point, actually”, adding that he had “made a note” to consider this going forward. The EIA itself also makes no mention of community events or protests, and does not specify how different groups could be affected by these different deployment scenarios. Elsewhere in the EIA, Essex Police claims that the system is likely to have minimal impact across age, gender and race, citing the 0.6 threshold setting, as well as NIST and DHS testing, as ways of achieving “equitability” across different demographics. Again, this threshold setting relates to a completely different system used by the Met and South Wales Police. For each protected characteristic, the EIA has a section on “mitigating” actions that can be taken to reduce adverse impacts. While the “ethnicity” section again highlights the National Physical Laboratory’s testing of a completely different algorithm, most other sections note that “any watchlist created will be done so as close to the deployment as possible, therefore hoping to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date images of persons being added are uploaded”. However, Yeung noted that the EIA makes no mention of the specific watchlist creation criteria beyond high-level “categories of images” that can be included, and the claimed equality impacts of that process. For example, it does not consider how people from certain ethnic minority or religious backgrounds could be disproportionally impacted as a result of their over-representation in police databases, or the issue of unlawful custody image retention whereby the Home Office is continuing to hold millions of custody images illegally in the Police National Database (PND). While the ethics panel meeting minutes offer greater insight into how Essex Police is approaching watchlist creation, the custody image retention issue was also not mentioned. Responding to Computer Weekly’s questions about the meeting minutes and the lack of scrutiny of key issues related to UK police LFR deployments, an Essex Police spokesperson said: “Our polices and processes around the use of live facial recognition have been carefully scrutinised through a thorough ethics panel.” Instead, the officer present explained how watchlists and deployments are decided based on the “intelligence case”, which then has to be justified as both proportionate and necessary. On the “Southend intelligence case”, the officer said deploying in the town centre would be permissible because “that’s where the most footfall is, the most opportunity to locate outstanding suspects”. They added: “The watchlist [then] has to be justified by the key elements, the policing purpose. Everything has to be proportionate and strictly necessary to be able to deploy… If the commander in Southend said, ‘I want to put everyone that’s wanted for shoplifting across Essex on the watchlist for Southend’, the answer would be no, because is it necessary? Probably not. Is it proportionate? I don’t think it is. Would it be proportionate to have individuals who are outstanding for shoplifting from the Southend area? Yes, because it’s local.” However, the officer also said that, on most occasions, the systems would be deployed to catch “our most serious offenders”, as this would be easier to justify from a public perception point of view. They added that, during the summer, it would be easier to justify deployments because of the seasonal population increase in Southend. “We know that there is a general increase in violence during those months. So, we don’t need to go down to the weeds to specifically look at grievous bodily harm [GBH] or murder or rape, because they’re not necessarily fuelled by a spike in terms of seasonality, for example,” they said. “However, we know that because the general population increases significantly, the level of violence increases significantly, which would justify that I could put those serious crimes on that watchlist.” Commenting on the responses given to the ethics panel, Yeung said they “failed entirely to provide me with confidence that their proposed deployments will have the required legal safeguards in place”. According to the Court of Appeal judgment against South Wales Police in the Bridges case, the force’s facial recognition policy contained “fundamental deficiencies” in relation to the “who” and “where” question of LFR. “In relation to both of those questions, too much discretion is currently left to individual police officers,” it said. “It is not clear who can be placed on the watchlist, nor is it clear that there are any criteria for determining where AFR [automated facial recognition] can be deployed.” Yeung added: “The same applies to these responses of Essex Police force, failing to adequately answer the ‘who’ and ‘where’ questions concerning their proposed facial recognition deployments. “Worse still, the court stated that a police force’s local policies can only satisfy the requirements that the privacy interventions arising from use of LFR are ‘prescribed by law’ if they are published. The documents were obtained by Big Brother Watch through freedom of information requests, strongly suggesting that these even these basic legal safeguards are not being met.” Yeung added that South Wales Police’s use of the technology was found to be unlawful in the Bridges case because there was excessive discretion left in the hands of individual police officers, allowing undue opportunities for arbitrary decision-making and abuses of power. Every decision ... must be specified in advance, documented and justified in accordance with the tests of proportionality and necessity. I don’t see any of that happening Karen Yeung, Birmingham Law School “Every decision – where you will deploy, whose face is placed on the watchlist and why, and the duration of deployment – must be specified in advance, documented and justified in accordance with the tests of proportionality and necessity,” she said. “I don’t see any of that happening. There are simply vague claims that ‘we’ll make sure we apply the legal test’, but how? They just offer unsubstantiated promises that ‘we will abide by the law’ without specifying how they will do so by meeting specific legal requirements.” Yeung further added these documents indicate that the police force is not looking for specific people wanted for serious crimes, but setting up dragnets for a wide variety of ‘wanted’ individuals, including those wanted for non-serious crimes such as shoplifting. “There are many platitudes about being ethical, but there’s nothing concrete indicating how they propose to meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality,” she said. “In liberal democratic societies, every single decision about an individual by the police made without their consent must be justified in accordance with law. That means that the police must be able to justify and defend the reasons why every single person whose face is uploaded to the facial recognition watchlist meets the legal test, based on their specific operational purpose.” Yeung concluded that, assuming they can do this, police must also consider the equality impacts of their actions, and how different groups are likely to be affected by their practical deployments: “I don’t see any of that.” In response to the concerns raised around watchlist creation, proportionality and necessity, an Essex Police spokesperson said: “The watchlists for each deployment are created to identify specific people wanted for specific crimes and to enforce orders. To date, we have focused on the types of offences which cause the most harm to our communities, including our hardworking businesses. “This includes violent crime, drugs, sexual offences and thefts from shops. As a result of our deployments, we have arrested people wanted in connection with attempted murder investigations, high-risk domestic abuse cases, GBH, sexual assault, drug supply and aggravated burglary offences. We have also been able to progress investigations and move closer to securing justice for victims.” Read more about police data and technology Metropolitan Police to deploy permanent facial recognition tech in Croydon: The Met is set to deploy permanent live facial recognition cameras on street furniture in Croydon from summer 2025, but local councillors say the decision – which has taken place with no community input – will further contribute the over-policing of Black communities. UK MoJ crime prediction algorithms raise serious concerns: The Ministry of Justice is using one algorithm to predict people’s risk of reoffending and another to predict who will commit murder, but critics say the profiling in these systems raises ‘serious concerns’ over racism, classism and data inaccuracies. UK law enforcement data adequacy at risk: The UK government says reforms to police data protection rules will help to simplify law enforcement data processing, but critics argue the changes will lower protection to the point where the UK risks losing its European data adequacy.