itchy_lizard

After being scammed into thinking her daughter was kidnapped, an Arizona woman testified in the US Senate about the dangers side of artificial intelligence technology when in the hands of criminals.

Jennifer DeStefano told the Senate judiciary committee about the fear she felt when she received an ominous phone call on a Friday last April.

Thinking the unknown number was a doctor’s office, she answered the phone just before 5pm on the final ring. On the other end of the line was her 15-year-old daughter – or at least what sounded exactly like her daughter’s voice.

“On the other end was our daughter Briana sobbing and crying saying ‘Mom’.”

Briana was on a ski trip when the incident took place so DeStefano assumed she injured herself and was calling let her know.

DeStefano heard the voice of her daughter and recreated the interaction for her audience: “‘Mom, I messed up’ with more crying and sobbing. Not thinking twice, I asked her again, ‘OK, what happened?’”

She continued: “Suddenly a man’s voice barked at her to ‘lay down and put your head back’.”

Panic immediately set in and DeStefano said she then demanded to know what was happening.

“Nothing could have prepared me for her response,” Defano said.

Defano said she heard her daughter say: “‘Mom these bad men have me. Help me! Help me!’ She begged and pleaded as the phone was taken from her.”

“Listen here, I have your daughter. You tell anyone, you call the cops, I am going to pump her stomach so full of drugs,” a man on the line then said to DeStefano.

The man then told DeStefano he “would have his way” with her daughter and drop her off in Mexico, and that she’d never see her again.

At the time of the phone call, DeStefano was at her other daughter Aubrey’s dance rehearsal. She put the phone on mute and screamed for help, which captured the attention of nearby parents who called 911 for her.

DeStefano negotiated with the fake kidnappers until police arrived. At first, they set the ransom at $1m and then lowered it to $50,000 when DeStefano told them such a high price was impossible.

She asked for a routing number and wiring instructions but the man refused that method because it could be “traced” and demanded cash instead.

DeStefano said she was told that she would be picked up in a white van with bag over her head so that she wouldn’t know where she was going.

She said he told her: “If I didn’t have all the money, then we were both going to be dead.”

But another parent with her informed her police were aware of AI scams like these. DeStefano then made contact with her actual daughter and husband, who confirmed repeatedly that they were fine.

“At that point, I hung up and collapsed to the floor in tears of relief,” DeStefano said.

When DeStefano tried to file a police report after the ordeal, she was dismissed and told this was a “prank call”.

A survey by McAfee, a computer security software company, found that 70% of people said they weren’t confident they could tell the difference between a cloned voice and the real thing. McAfee also said it takes only three seconds of audio to replicate a person’s voice.

DeStefano urged lawmakers to act in order prevent scams like these from hurting other people.

She said: “If left uncontrolled, unregulated, and we are left unprotected without consequence, it will rewrite our understanding and perception what is and what is not truth. It will erode our sense of ‘familiar’ as it corrodes our confidence in what is real and what is not.”

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg told the Bonn COP28 preparatory conference that humanity needed to act on the climate crisis now or face ‘the death sentence.’

https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/greta-thunberg-speaks-at-cop28-prep-conf-idOV962813062023RP1

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg told the Bonn COP28 preparatory conference that humanity needed to act on the climate crisis now or face ‘the death sentence.’

https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/greta-thunberg-speaks-at-cop28-prep-conf-idOV962813062023RP1

One of Guatemala’s best known journalists is facing up to 40 years in prison on Wednesday in a case that has raised alarm about a squeeze on democracy in Central America’s largest economy.

José Rubén Zamora said he believed the charges of money laundering, blackmail and influence peddling against him were filed in retaliation for stories published by his newspaper that alleged corruption by the government of President Alejandro Giammattei.

Days before his final hearing, Zamora told the Financial Times: “What [the president] has done to me is horrible . . . [But] I’m glad that he put me here for doing my job properly.” Giammattei’s office denied any role in Zamora’s case.

Businessman and journalist Zamora, who is being held in the isolation wing of a prison on the outskirts of Guatemala City, won international acclaim for his work exposing corruption since the country’s civil war.

Zamora has been the target of attacks, raids and threats for decades. But in May he said political and economic pressure had made it impossible to continue and he shut down El Periódico, the newspaper he started as the country signed peace accords to end its 36-year civil war in 1996.

The detention and potential conviction of one of the country’s highest-profile journalists has sparked fear among Guatemala’s reporters, with more than 20 fleeing the country in a little over a year, according to the journalism collective #NoNosCallaran (“They will not silence us”).

Zamora’s case comes as members of the media across the region face increasing physical and legal threats, pushing major outlets such as El Salvador’s El Faro and Nicaragua’s La Prensa to relocate abroad.

The verdict in Zamora’s case could come under two weeks before presidential and congressional elections.

“Everyone is terrified,” Zamora said of the country’s press corps. He spoke from the prison on a military base surrounded by lush green forest where he is kept separate from other inmates. Zamora has just one hour a day outside his cell on a small patio.

Giammattei has insisted there is a free press in Guatemala and has underscored its importance for building a democracy. A spokesperson for him rejected any suggestion he was involved in Zamora’s case, stressing the executive branch is separate from the judiciary.

“Guatemala respects and works to guarantee the free exercise of journalism,” the spokesperson said. “We’ve counted more than 6,000 critical stories about the government of Guatemala and there has been no censorship, therefore publishing baseless assertions is an irresponsible decision.”

Giammattei and other political leaders have stressed that the case against Zamora is about how he handled the newspapers’ finances, not its stories. “Does press freedom mean immunity for his acts that aren’t acts done as a journalist but as a businessman?” Giammattei told Colombian radio earlier this year.

Zamora and rights groups say the case is politically motivated and plagued with procedural irregularities. He was arrested within days of the original complaint, and the case could be wrapped up in just a year in a country with widespread impunity and where cases often drag on for years. Prosecutors have asked for a longer than standard sentence because he “disrespected the authorities”.

The country’s attorney-general and chief anti-corruption prosecutors are on Washington’s undemocratic and corrupt actors list.

Prosecutors have also pursued cases against several of Zamora’s defence lawyers, reporters and family members, including last week asking the now-shut El Periódico for all the stories published by nine of its journalists since July 2022.

“This is something you would expect in Cuba, not in a democratic country,” said Juan Pappier, acting deputy director for the Americas at Human Rights Watch. “There is a push to destroy the independent press in Guatemala through various means.”

Several journalists in Guatemala said they felt they had to be careful before publishing stories. In March, the US embassy in Guatemala said it was “deeply concerned” about the reports of an investigation into El Periódico journalists.

Journalist Sonny Figueroa, founder of Guatemalan news site Vox Populi, said there were still critical journalists in the country doing essential work, but that he had suffered harassment, death threats and a criminal complaint made by subjects of a corruption story. He and his reporting partner Marvin Del Cid had already left the country temporarily twice. “We have one foot out and one foot in,” he said.

The drive to prosecute journalists ramped up after the state had already pursued cases against former officials, who had investigated corruption with a UN-backed commission known as the CICIG. The CICIG filed more than 120 cases and helped to topple former president Otto Pérez Molina but its mandate was not renewed by the former government in 2019.

Since then, many of those involved in trying the cases have been prosecuted themselves, and more than 30 former justice system officials have left the country, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Claudia Samayoa, founder of non-profit the Human Rights Defenders Protection Unit in Guatemala, called the crackdown “the politics of revenge”.

Samayoa said prosecutors were increasingly using laws aimed at tackling organised crime to pursue reporters. “The real intention of all these cases is to capture the journalist . . . it’s very easy to be put in prison, getting out of prison is difficult,” she said.

Zamora, who spends his days reading through a pile of books from novels by Jorge Luis Borges to a Winston Churchill biography, said he thought Guatemala and neighbouring authoritarian Nicaragua were like “twin brothers”.

“We are at a high risk . . . of becoming a tyrannical, fascist dictatorship,” he said.

One of Guatemala’s best known journalists is facing up to 40 years in prison on Wednesday in a case that has raised alarm about a squeeze on democracy in Central America’s largest economy.

José Rubén Zamora said he believed the charges of money laundering, blackmail and influence peddling against him were filed in retaliation for stories published by his newspaper that alleged corruption by the government of President Alejandro Giammattei.

Days before his final hearing, Zamora told the Financial Times: “What [the president] has done to me is horrible . . . [But] I’m glad that he put me here for doing my job properly.” Giammattei’s office denied any role in Zamora’s case.

Businessman and journalist Zamora, who is being held in the isolation wing of a prison on the outskirts of Guatemala City, won international acclaim for his work exposing corruption since the country’s civil war.

Zamora has been the target of attacks, raids and threats for decades. But in May he said political and economic pressure had made it impossible to continue and he shut down El Periódico, the newspaper he started as the country signed peace accords to end its 36-year civil war in 1996.

The detention and potential conviction of one of the country’s highest-profile journalists has sparked fear among Guatemala’s reporters, with more than 20 fleeing the country in a little over a year, according to the journalism collective #NoNosCallaran (“They will not silence us”).

Zamora’s case comes as members of the media across the region face increasing physical and legal threats, pushing major outlets such as El Salvador’s El Faro and Nicaragua’s La Prensa to relocate abroad.

The verdict in Zamora’s case could come under two weeks before presidential and congressional elections.

“Everyone is terrified,” Zamora said of the country’s press corps. He spoke from the prison on a military base surrounded by lush green forest where he is kept separate from other inmates. Zamora has just one hour a day outside his cell on a small patio.

Giammattei has insisted there is a free press in Guatemala and has underscored its importance for building a democracy. A spokesperson for him rejected any suggestion he was involved in Zamora’s case, stressing the executive branch is separate from the judiciary.

“Guatemala respects and works to guarantee the free exercise of journalism,” the spokesperson said. “We’ve counted more than 6,000 critical stories about the government of Guatemala and there has been no censorship, therefore publishing baseless assertions is an irresponsible decision.”

Giammattei and other political leaders have stressed that the case against Zamora is about how he handled the newspapers’ finances, not its stories. “Does press freedom mean immunity for his acts that aren’t acts done as a journalist but as a businessman?” Giammattei told Colombian radio earlier this year.

Zamora and rights groups say the case is politically motivated and plagued with procedural irregularities. He was arrested within days of the original complaint, and the case could be wrapped up in just a year in a country with widespread impunity and where cases often drag on for years. Prosecutors have asked for a longer than standard sentence because he “disrespected the authorities”.

The country’s attorney-general and chief anti-corruption prosecutors are on Washington’s undemocratic and corrupt actors list.

Prosecutors have also pursued cases against several of Zamora’s defence lawyers, reporters and family members, including last week asking the now-shut El Periódico for all the stories published by nine of its journalists since July 2022.

“This is something you would expect in Cuba, not in a democratic country,” said Juan Pappier, acting deputy director for the Americas at Human Rights Watch. “There is a push to destroy the independent press in Guatemala through various means.”

Several journalists in Guatemala said they felt they had to be careful before publishing stories. In March, the US embassy in Guatemala said it was “deeply concerned” about the reports of an investigation into El Periódico journalists.

Journalist Sonny Figueroa, founder of Guatemalan news site Vox Populi, said there were still critical journalists in the country doing essential work, but that he had suffered harassment, death threats and a criminal complaint made by subjects of a corruption story. He and his reporting partner Marvin Del Cid had already left the country temporarily twice. “We have one foot out and one foot in,” he said.

The drive to prosecute journalists ramped up after the state had already pursued cases against former officials, who had investigated corruption with a UN-backed commission known as the CICIG. The CICIG filed more than 120 cases and helped to topple former president Otto Pérez Molina but its mandate was not renewed by the former government in 2019.

Since then, many of those involved in trying the cases have been prosecuted themselves, and more than 30 former justice system officials have left the country, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Claudia Samayoa, founder of non-profit the Human Rights Defenders Protection Unit in Guatemala, called the crackdown “the politics of revenge”.

Samayoa said prosecutors were increasingly using laws aimed at tackling organised crime to pursue reporters. “The real intention of all these cases is to capture the journalist . . . it’s very easy to be put in prison, getting out of prison is difficult,” she said.

Zamora, who spends his days reading through a pile of books from novels by Jorge Luis Borges to a Winston Churchill biography, said he thought Guatemala and neighbouring authoritarian Nicaragua were like “twin brothers”.

“We are at a high risk . . . of becoming a tyrannical, fascist dictatorship,” he said.

On June 11, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered a significant speech to a group of scientists, experts, and officials in Iran’s nuclear industry. He praised their achievements and cautiously approved the possibility of a deal with the West regarding Tehran’s nuclear program but also emphasized the importance of preserving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Given that the Supreme Leader holds the final authority in all foreign policy matters, his diplomatic language provides crucial insights into Iran’s negotiating stance and carries serious implications for the future of nuclear negotiations and U.S.-Iran relations.

The speech comes at a critical juncture for Iran’s nuclear program and its relations with Washington and its Western allies. The indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran have been stalled since September, with both sides accusing the other of making unreasonable demands. The Iranian government’s assistance to Russia in the Ukraine war and its brutal crackdown on a countrywide protest movement since that time have also stalled the negotiation process.

Meanwhile, Iran has been steadily advancing its nuclear activities by increasing its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, installing more advanced centrifuges, and reducing cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These moves, which exceed the limits established under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that was negotiated between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have increased concerns about Iran’s intentions as it has approached nuclear breakout capability.

While a full restoration of the JCPOA appears increasingly unlikely, both sides could still benefit from a smaller agreement that involves mutual concessions. Such an agreement would help alleviate tensions and partially address their respective interests, thus averting an immediate crisis.

Khamenei’s approval of a potential agreement, albeit with the caveat that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure should not be compromised, could be interpreted as a signal that Tehran is now prepared to make some concessions for a deal. The key question, however, is what he meant by preserving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which could encompass advanced centrifuges, high-enriched uranium stockpiles, and other nuclear material and equipment that pose a proliferation risk.

Iran’s primary concern lies in receiving assurances that the U.S. will honor any new deal, even if it isn’t legally binding. Hence, many in Iran argue that maintaining significant parts of its nuclear infrastructure, even if placed under IAEA or international supervision, is a necessary safeguard against any potential U.S. withdrawal from a new agreement. However, preserving the nuclear infrastructure as it exists today would clearly violate the limitations set forth in the 2015 nuclear deal.

In his speech, Khamenei also reiterated Iran’s long-held position that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and emphasized that such weapons, along with chemical weapons that indiscriminately kill people, are prohibited on religious grounds. He insisted that the West’s claim about “the fear of nuclear weapons production in Iran” is a lie, adding that the U.S. intelligence community has acknowledged several times, including in recent months, that there is no sign of Iran moving towards producing nuclear weapons. He also urged Iran to maintain its cooperation with the IAEA within the framework of its safeguards agreement.

Interestingly, Khamenei’s speech coincides with reports — originating in Korean, Israeli, and Qatari media — suggesting that the U.S. and Iran are indeed considering a more limited or interim agreement. Such an agreement would involve freezing or rolling back some of Iran’s nuclear advances in exchange for partial sanctions relief. Both sides, however, have so far denied reaching any interim deal or alternative arrangement beyond the JCPOA.

Nevertheless, the stakes are high for both sides, as they face domestic and international pressures to resolve the nuclear impasse. Khamenei seeks to ensure conservative President Ebrahim Raisi’s success as his protégé and potential successor, secure Iran’s strategic interests and regional influence, and avoid military confrontation with the U.S. or Israel, both of which have threatened to use force if diplomacy fails to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On the other hand, President Biden aims to fulfill his promise of diplomacy with Iran, prevent a nuclear crisis that could negatively impact his 2024 reelection campaign, and address concerns from U.S. allies in the region, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia, regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional behavior.

In this context, Khamenei’s speech signals support for the Raisi government to pursue a diplomatic solution with Washington.

Any new agreement, however, carries risks and challenges for both parties. They must navigate the expectations and reactions of their domestic and international audiences, some of which may oppose or seek to undermine a deal. In the U.S., the Biden administration faces resistance from lawmakers, particularly Republicans, who have long opposed the JCPOA and favor maintaining, if not increasing tough economic sanctions against Iran. Biden would face a major challenge, particularly in light of Tehran’s closer ties with Moscow since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in persuading Congress and the American public that engaging with Tehran serves the national interest.

Similarly, Raisi must contend with hardliners to his right who oppose any compromises on Iran’s nuclear program and argue that it would be foolhardy to trust that the U.S. would fulfill its promises given former President Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA. Nonetheless, Khamenei’s speech may help protect Raisi against domestic criticism if his diplomats manage to secure a deal.

Ultimately, both Iran and the U.S. share a strong interest in reaching an agreement. A more limited or interim agreement could serve as a crucial bridge, effectively easing tensions and building a foundation for further negotiations. Khamenei’s speech potentially paves the way for a breakthrough in the protracted nuclear impasse or, at the very least, mitigates the risk of further escalation and confrontation with the U.S. However, achieving such an outcome remains uncertain, as both sides face formidable domestic and international pressures that could derail the diplomatic process.

On June 11, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered a significant speech to a group of scientists, experts, and officials in Iran’s nuclear industry. He praised their achievements and cautiously approved the possibility of a deal with the West regarding Tehran’s nuclear program but also emphasized the importance of preserving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Given that the Supreme Leader holds the final authority in all foreign policy matters, his diplomatic language provides crucial insights into Iran’s negotiating stance and carries serious implications for the future of nuclear negotiations and U.S.-Iran relations.

The speech comes at a critical juncture for Iran’s nuclear program and its relations with Washington and its Western allies. The indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran have been stalled since September, with both sides accusing the other of making unreasonable demands. The Iranian government’s assistance to Russia in the Ukraine war and its brutal crackdown on a countrywide protest movement since that time have also stalled the negotiation process.

Meanwhile, Iran has been steadily advancing its nuclear activities by increasing its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, installing more advanced centrifuges, and reducing cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These moves, which exceed the limits established under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that was negotiated between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have increased concerns about Iran’s intentions as it has approached nuclear breakout capability.

While a full restoration of the JCPOA appears increasingly unlikely, both sides could still benefit from a smaller agreement that involves mutual concessions. Such an agreement would help alleviate tensions and partially address their respective interests, thus averting an immediate crisis.

Khamenei’s approval of a potential agreement, albeit with the caveat that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure should not be compromised, could be interpreted as a signal that Tehran is now prepared to make some concessions for a deal. The key question, however, is what he meant by preserving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which could encompass advanced centrifuges, high-enriched uranium stockpiles, and other nuclear material and equipment that pose a proliferation risk.

Iran’s primary concern lies in receiving assurances that the U.S. will honor any new deal, even if it isn’t legally binding. Hence, many in Iran argue that maintaining significant parts of its nuclear infrastructure, even if placed under IAEA or international supervision, is a necessary safeguard against any potential U.S. withdrawal from a new agreement. However, preserving the nuclear infrastructure as it exists today would clearly violate the limitations set forth in the 2015 nuclear deal.

In his speech, Khamenei also reiterated Iran’s long-held position that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and emphasized that such weapons, along with chemical weapons that indiscriminately kill people, are prohibited on religious grounds. He insisted that the West’s claim about “the fear of nuclear weapons production in Iran” is a lie, adding that the U.S. intelligence community has acknowledged several times, including in recent months, that there is no sign of Iran moving towards producing nuclear weapons. He also urged Iran to maintain its cooperation with the IAEA within the framework of its safeguards agreement.

Interestingly, Khamenei’s speech coincides with reports — originating in Korean, Israeli, and Qatari media — suggesting that the U.S. and Iran are indeed considering a more limited or interim agreement. Such an agreement would involve freezing or rolling back some of Iran’s nuclear advances in exchange for partial sanctions relief. Both sides, however, have so far denied reaching any interim deal or alternative arrangement beyond the JCPOA.

Nevertheless, the stakes are high for both sides, as they face domestic and international pressures to resolve the nuclear impasse. Khamenei seeks to ensure conservative President Ebrahim Raisi’s success as his protégé and potential successor, secure Iran’s strategic interests and regional influence, and avoid military confrontation with the U.S. or Israel, both of which have threatened to use force if diplomacy fails to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On the other hand, President Biden aims to fulfill his promise of diplomacy with Iran, prevent a nuclear crisis that could negatively impact his 2024 reelection campaign, and address concerns from U.S. allies in the region, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia, regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional behavior.

In this context, Khamenei’s speech signals support for the Raisi government to pursue a diplomatic solution with Washington.

Any new agreement, however, carries risks and challenges for both parties. They must navigate the expectations and reactions of their domestic and international audiences, some of which may oppose or seek to undermine a deal. In the U.S., the Biden administration faces resistance from lawmakers, particularly Republicans, who have long opposed the JCPOA and favor maintaining, if not increasing tough economic sanctions against Iran. Biden would face a major challenge, particularly in light of Tehran’s closer ties with Moscow since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in persuading Congress and the American public that engaging with Tehran serves the national interest.

Similarly, Raisi must contend with hardliners to his right who oppose any compromises on Iran’s nuclear program and argue that it would be foolhardy to trust that the U.S. would fulfill its promises given former President Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA. Nonetheless, Khamenei’s speech may help protect Raisi against domestic criticism if his diplomats manage to secure a deal.

Ultimately, both Iran and the U.S. share a strong interest in reaching an agreement. A more limited or interim agreement could serve as a crucial bridge, effectively easing tensions and building a foundation for further negotiations. Khamenei’s speech potentially paves the way for a breakthrough in the protracted nuclear impasse or, at the very least, mitigates the risk of further escalation and confrontation with the U.S. However, achieving such an outcome remains uncertain, as both sides face formidable domestic and international pressures that could derail the diplomatic process.

On June 11, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered a significant speech to a group of scientists, experts, and officials in Iran’s nuclear industry. He praised their achievements and cautiously approved the possibility of a deal with the West regarding Tehran’s nuclear program but also emphasized the importance of preserving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Given that the Supreme Leader holds the final authority in all foreign policy matters, his diplomatic language provides crucial insights into Iran’s negotiating stance and carries serious implications for the future of nuclear negotiations and U.S.-Iran relations.

The speech comes at a critical juncture for Iran’s nuclear program and its relations with Washington and its Western allies. The indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran have been stalled since September, with both sides accusing the other of making unreasonable demands. The Iranian government’s assistance to Russia in the Ukraine war and its brutal crackdown on a countrywide protest movement since that time have also stalled the negotiation process.

Meanwhile, Iran has been steadily advancing its nuclear activities by increasing its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, installing more advanced centrifuges, and reducing cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These moves, which exceed the limits established under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that was negotiated between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have increased concerns about Iran’s intentions as it has approached nuclear breakout capability.

While a full restoration of the JCPOA appears increasingly unlikely, both sides could still benefit from a smaller agreement that involves mutual concessions. Such an agreement would help alleviate tensions and partially address their respective interests, thus averting an immediate crisis.

Khamenei’s approval of a potential agreement, albeit with the caveat that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure should not be compromised, could be interpreted as a signal that Tehran is now prepared to make some concessions for a deal. The key question, however, is what he meant by preserving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which could encompass advanced centrifuges, high-enriched uranium stockpiles, and other nuclear material and equipment that pose a proliferation risk.

Iran’s primary concern lies in receiving assurances that the U.S. will honor any new deal, even if it isn’t legally binding. Hence, many in Iran argue that maintaining significant parts of its nuclear infrastructure, even if placed under IAEA or international supervision, is a necessary safeguard against any potential U.S. withdrawal from a new agreement. However, preserving the nuclear infrastructure as it exists today would clearly violate the limitations set forth in the 2015 nuclear deal.

In his speech, Khamenei also reiterated Iran’s long-held position that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and emphasized that such weapons, along with chemical weapons that indiscriminately kill people, are prohibited on religious grounds. He insisted that the West’s claim about “the fear of nuclear weapons production in Iran” is a lie, adding that the U.S. intelligence community has acknowledged several times, including in recent months, that there is no sign of Iran moving towards producing nuclear weapons. He also urged Iran to maintain its cooperation with the IAEA within the framework of its safeguards agreement.

Interestingly, Khamenei’s speech coincides with reports — originating in Korean, Israeli, and Qatari media — suggesting that the U.S. and Iran are indeed considering a more limited or interim agreement. Such an agreement would involve freezing or rolling back some of Iran’s nuclear advances in exchange for partial sanctions relief. Both sides, however, have so far denied reaching any interim deal or alternative arrangement beyond the JCPOA.

Nevertheless, the stakes are high for both sides, as they face domestic and international pressures to resolve the nuclear impasse. Khamenei seeks to ensure conservative President Ebrahim Raisi’s success as his protégé and potential successor, secure Iran’s strategic interests and regional influence, and avoid military confrontation with the U.S. or Israel, both of which have threatened to use force if diplomacy fails to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On the other hand, President Biden aims to fulfill his promise of diplomacy with Iran, prevent a nuclear crisis that could negatively impact his 2024 reelection campaign, and address concerns from U.S. allies in the region, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia, regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional behavior.

In this context, Khamenei’s speech signals support for the Raisi government to pursue a diplomatic solution with Washington.

Any new agreement, however, carries risks and challenges for both parties. They must navigate the expectations and reactions of their domestic and international audiences, some of which may oppose or seek to undermine a deal. In the U.S., the Biden administration faces resistance from lawmakers, particularly Republicans, who have long opposed the JCPOA and favor maintaining, if not increasing tough economic sanctions against Iran. Biden would face a major challenge, particularly in light of Tehran’s closer ties with Moscow since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in persuading Congress and the American public that engaging with Tehran serves the national interest.

Similarly, Raisi must contend with hardliners to his right who oppose any compromises on Iran’s nuclear program and argue that it would be foolhardy to trust that the U.S. would fulfill its promises given former President Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA. Nonetheless, Khamenei’s speech may help protect Raisi against domestic criticism if his diplomats manage to secure a deal.

Ultimately, both Iran and the U.S. share a strong interest in reaching an agreement. A more limited or interim agreement could serve as a crucial bridge, effectively easing tensions and building a foundation for further negotiations. Khamenei’s speech potentially paves the way for a breakthrough in the protracted nuclear impasse or, at the very least, mitigates the risk of further escalation and confrontation with the U.S. However, achieving such an outcome remains uncertain, as both sides face formidable domestic and international pressures that could derail the diplomatic process.

Hours before dawn on Tuesday, eight animal liberation activists entered the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse facility in Sonoma County, California, disguised as workers, with the aim of rescuing as many chickens as possible.

Meanwhile, approximately 175 protesters gathered outside the property, where up to 49,000 chickens are killed every day, and where animal rights activists allege animal abuses and risks to public health are rampant. Some of the demonstrators joined those who had entered the property to assist in the planned “open rescue” action: a tactic by which activists publicly remove ailing animals from factory farms and bring them to animal sanctuaries, while highlighting the harms of the meat and animal products industry.

By 3 a.m. PT, as partly captured in a video shared exclusively with The Intercept, activists had removed 11 chickens from trucks that had transported thousands of chickens onto the slaughterhouse property, packed together as tightly as physically possible. Seven more birds were rescued soon after from a truck on its way to the facility.

I’m in Tuesday’s rescue and demonstration, organized by activists affiliated with animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE, coincided with the release of a report from the group Tuesday morning. Shared with The Intercept and disseminated to regulatory agencies, the report alleges that Petaluma Poultry, a subsidiary of agribusiness giant Perdue Farms, is routinely violating animal cruelty laws and exposing the public to major health risks — including the possibility of future zoonotic disease pandemics — through brutal and negligent treatment of birds marketed as “free range” and “organic.”

The new report is based on undercover investigations at the slaughterhouse and a half dozen of Petaluma’s supplier farms, including whistleblower reports, firsthand observations, and hidden camera footage, alongside findings from veterinary medicine experts and infectious disease specialists who carried out fecal tests and examined animals — some sick, some already dead — brought to them from Petaluma facilities by DxE activists. (Petaluma Poultry and Perdue Farms did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment on Tuesday morning’s report release and rescue.)

The very same animals that are cheerily packaged and sold in grocery stores nationwide under the personalizing brand names “Rocky” and “Rosie” — “Rosie” was the first chicken line in the United States to carry a certified organic label — are processed in a slaughterhouse where undercover investigator Raven Deerbrook said she found animals that were tortured and sick and where workers labored in dangerous conditions.

A dead chicken lies on a dirt covered shelf in 2023.

Photo: Courtesy of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE)

Deerbrook’s account and materials formed the basis of parts of the new DxE report, which the group sent to local, state, and federal authorities to request official investigations. DxE sent its report to USDA Farm Service Agency California Executive Director Blong Xiong; California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta; Sonoma County Animal Services, District Attorney Carla Rodriguez, Sheriff Eddie Engram, and Administrator Christina Rivera; and a host of other officials and agencies from nearby counties.

“Hundreds are discovered to be so diseased that they are condemned after being slaughtered.”

“I am seeing sick birds being crowded onto trucks by the thousands. Dozens are dying on the way to the slaughterhouse,” Deerbrook, who entered the slaughterhouse undetected in a worker’s uniform, photographed internal documents, and set up hidden cameras, alleged over Signal message. “Hundreds are discovered to be so diseased that they are condemned after being slaughtered.”

Deerbrook, who worked for months gathering materials for the DxE report, said that she saw chickens injured while being hung on the slaughter line; she photographed company reports about bruised birds, which is a sign of abuse; she saw evidence of birds missing the “stun bath”: an electrical water bath in which birds’ heads are dipped to stun them unconscious before slaughter. She added that she saw “birds trying to escape and being cut-into while they were conscious, and I see evidence of them being boiled alive.” She also charged that she saw workers performing “one of the most dangerous tasks (live hanging) in pitch darkness, and many are suffering with pain and injuries.”

None of the local, state, and federal officials and agencies that received the report responded immediately to The Intercept’s request for comment.

Over 1,000 animals were “condemned” — disqualified from the food supply — on a single day in April 2023 after being slaughtered, according to documents from the slaughterhouse obtained by Deerbrook over a three-month period. Hundreds of them were condemned due to septicaemia, a form of bacterial blood poisoning, and toxemia. The investigation included lab reports from veterinarians that found dangerous pathogens in several birds. The slaughterhouse was also found to have unusually high rates of salmonella and campylobacter, two bacteria that cause widespread illnesses in humans, according to a local press report citing government data.

While Covid-19 was not transmitted to humans through factory farming, the deadliest pandemic in U.S. history should have prompted a reckoning over how we think about zoonotic disease spread and the undeniable future pandemic risks of intensive animal produce industry. Like so many ostensible pandemic reckonings, the dangerously concentrated — not to mention torturous — mass production of meat and animal products continues unfettered. Related Amid Bird Flu Outbreak, Meat Producers Seek “Ventilation Shutdown” for Mass Chicken Killing

“Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) investigators made repeated visits to six Petaluma Poultry-supplying factory farms in Northern California,” the report says. “They documented routine violations of California’s animal cruelty laws, including birds collapsed on the floor or stuck on their backs and unable to walk to food or water, left to slowly starve to death, as well as infectious diseases that threaten public health. Yet, despite dozens of reports to county and state authorities, the government still refuses to hold the company accountable.”

Current felony defendant Rachel Ziegler holds a bird removed from a barn at McCoy’s Poultry on Sept. 29, 2018.

Photo: Courtesy of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE)

DxE has been making allegations about cruelty and neglect at Petaluma Poultry since at least 2018, when, following investigations into widespread animal cruelty at its facilities, the animal rights group’s activists carried out a previous mass rescue action at Petaluma supplier, McCoy’s Poultry. After examining birds retrieved from the farm, Sonoma County’s own Animal Services Department referred McCoy’s to the sheriff’s office as a suspect in an animal cruelty case. The facility was shuttered, but no such charges materialized.

Meanwhile, 58 activists were arrested on felony charges for their involvement in the attempted rescue that drew attention to these systematic abuses. Many of these cases have since been dropped or resolved through diversions or plea deals. Four people involved in nonviolent protest actions against factory farms are currently still facing criminal charges in Sonoma County, including a total of 12 felony charges.

“The diseases and bacteria that we found are pretty shocking.”

“Following the 2018 rescue effort at McCoy’s Poultry, that facility closed down, but the cruelty we found there was not an isolated incident,” said Zoe Rosenberg, a DxE activist who participated in Tuesday’s rescue effort. “We have continued to investigate Petaluma Poultry farms across Northern California and we have repeatedly found sick, injured, collapsed, and starving animals.”

Rosenberg said that “the diseases and bacteria that we found are pretty shocking.” The pathogen Clostridium perfringens, which was found in the necropsy report carried out by the California Animal Health and Food Safety Lab at the University of California, Davis of a chicken from the farm, according to the DxE report, can cause necrotic enteritis in humans: a bowel disease that kills up to 50 percent of humans who contract it and is responsible for 8 percent neonatal intensive care unit admissions. “This industry is hurting all of us, especially those who are immunocompromised like I am,” Rosenberg, who has a chronic illness, told me.

“75% of new or emerging infectious diseases in humans come from animals,” the DxE report says. “We see the perfect breeding ground for such new diseases to emerge in the filthy, crowded, and disease-ridden conditions at Petaluma Poultry factory farms, particularly given the company’s inability to keep these diseases out of the slaughterhouse and the food supply.”

Police were called to the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse in response to Tuesday’s action, but all the activists on the property had left with the rescued chickens by the time cops entered the facility. None of the rescue participants on Tuesday morning have been arrested at the time of writing.

Previous rescues have led to numerous arrests and charges, but DxE has a strong record when it comes to winning cases in court. In March, two DxE activists, Alicia Santurio and Alexandra Paul, were acquitted in California of theft charges over the rescue of two chickens from Foster Farms.

Hours before dawn on Tuesday, eight animal liberation activists entered the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse facility in Sonoma County, California, disguised as workers, with the aim of rescuing as many chickens as possible.

Meanwhile, approximately 175 protesters gathered outside the property, where up to 49,000 chickens are killed every day, and where animal rights activists allege animal abuses and risks to public health are rampant. Some of the demonstrators joined those who had entered the property to assist in the planned “open rescue” action: a tactic by which activists publicly remove ailing animals from factory farms and bring them to animal sanctuaries, while highlighting the harms of the meat and animal products industry.

By 3 a.m. PT, as partly captured in a video shared exclusively with The Intercept, activists had removed 11 chickens from trucks that had transported thousands of chickens onto the slaughterhouse property, packed together as tightly as physically possible. Seven more birds were rescued soon after from a truck on its way to the facility.

I'm in Tuesday’s rescue and demonstration, organized by activists affiliated with animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE, coincided with the release of a report from the group Tuesday morning. Shared with The Intercept and disseminated to regulatory agencies, the report alleges that Petaluma Poultry, a subsidiary of agribusiness giant Perdue Farms, is routinely violating animal cruelty laws and exposing the public to major health risks — including the possibility of future zoonotic disease pandemics — through brutal and negligent treatment of birds marketed as “free range” and “organic.”

The new report is based on undercover investigations at the slaughterhouse and a half dozen of Petaluma’s supplier farms, including whistleblower reports, firsthand observations, and hidden camera footage, alongside findings from veterinary medicine experts and infectious disease specialists who carried out fecal tests and examined animals — some sick, some already dead — brought to them from Petaluma facilities by DxE activists. (Petaluma Poultry and Perdue Farms did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment on Tuesday morning’s report release and rescue.)

The very same animals that are cheerily packaged and sold in grocery stores nationwide under the personalizing brand names “Rocky” and “Rosie” — “Rosie” was the first chicken line in the United States to carry a certified organic label — are processed in a slaughterhouse where undercover investigator Raven Deerbrook said she found animals that were tortured and sick and where workers labored in dangerous conditions.

A dead chicken lies on a dirt covered shelf in 2023.

Photo: Courtesy of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE)

Deerbrook’s account and materials formed the basis of parts of the new DxE report, which the group sent to local, state, and federal authorities to request official investigations. DxE sent its report to USDA Farm Service Agency California Executive Director Blong Xiong; California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta; Sonoma County Animal Services, District Attorney Carla Rodriguez, Sheriff Eddie Engram, and Administrator Christina Rivera; and a host of other officials and agencies from nearby counties.

“Hundreds are discovered to be so diseased that they are condemned after being slaughtered.”

“I am seeing sick birds being crowded onto trucks by the thousands. Dozens are dying on the way to the slaughterhouse,” Deerbrook, who entered the slaughterhouse undetected in a worker’s uniform, photographed internal documents, and set up hidden cameras, alleged over Signal message. “Hundreds are discovered to be so diseased that they are condemned after being slaughtered.”

Deerbrook, who worked for months gathering materials for the DxE report, said that she saw chickens injured while being hung on the slaughter line; she photographed company reports about bruised birds, which is a sign of abuse; she saw evidence of birds missing the “stun bath”: an electrical water bath in which birds’ heads are dipped to stun them unconscious before slaughter. She added that she saw “birds trying to escape and being cut-into while they were conscious, and I see evidence of them being boiled alive.” She also charged that she saw workers performing “one of the most dangerous tasks (live hanging) in pitch darkness, and many are suffering with pain and injuries.”

None of the local, state, and federal officials and agencies that received the report responded immediately to The Intercept’s request for comment.

Over 1,000 animals were “condemned” — disqualified from the food supply — on a single day in April 2023 after being slaughtered, according to documents from the slaughterhouse obtained by Deerbrook over a three-month period. Hundreds of them were condemned due to septicaemia, a form of bacterial blood poisoning, and toxemia. The investigation included lab reports from veterinarians that found dangerous pathogens in several birds. The slaughterhouse was also found to have unusually high rates of salmonella and campylobacter, two bacteria that cause widespread illnesses in humans, according to a local press report citing government data.

While Covid-19 was not transmitted to humans through factory farming, the deadliest pandemic in U.S. history should have prompted a reckoning over how we think about zoonotic disease spread and the undeniable future pandemic risks of intensive animal produce industry. Like so many ostensible pandemic reckonings, the dangerously concentrated — not to mention torturous — mass production of meat and animal products continues unfettered. Related Amid Bird Flu Outbreak, Meat Producers Seek “Ventilation Shutdown” for Mass Chicken Killing

“Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) investigators made repeated visits to six Petaluma Poultry-supplying factory farms in Northern California,” the report says. “They documented routine violations of California’s animal cruelty laws, including birds collapsed on the floor or stuck on their backs and unable to walk to food or water, left to slowly starve to death, as well as infectious diseases that threaten public health. Yet, despite dozens of reports to county and state authorities, the government still refuses to hold the company accountable.”

Current felony defendant Rachel Ziegler holds a bird removed from a barn at McCoy’s Poultry on Sept. 29, 2018.

Photo: Courtesy of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE)

DxE has been making allegations about cruelty and neglect at Petaluma Poultry since at least 2018, when, following investigations into widespread animal cruelty at its facilities, the animal rights group’s activists carried out a previous mass rescue action at Petaluma supplier, McCoy’s Poultry. After examining birds retrieved from the farm, Sonoma County’s own Animal Services Department referred McCoy’s to the sheriff’s office as a suspect in an animal cruelty case. The facility was shuttered, but no such charges materialized.

Meanwhile, 58 activists were arrested on felony charges for their involvement in the attempted rescue that drew attention to these systematic abuses. Many of these cases have since been dropped or resolved through diversions or plea deals. Four people involved in nonviolent protest actions against factory farms are currently still facing criminal charges in Sonoma County, including a total of 12 felony charges.

“The diseases and bacteria that we found are pretty shocking.”

“Following the 2018 rescue effort at McCoy’s Poultry, that facility closed down, but the cruelty we found there was not an isolated incident,” said Zoe Rosenberg, a DxE activist who participated in Tuesday’s rescue effort. “We have continued to investigate Petaluma Poultry farms across Northern California and we have repeatedly found sick, injured, collapsed, and starving animals.”

Rosenberg said that “the diseases and bacteria that we found are pretty shocking.” The pathogen Clostridium perfringens, which was found in the necropsy report carried out by the California Animal Health and Food Safety Lab at the University of California, Davis of a chicken from the farm, according to the DxE report, can cause necrotic enteritis in humans: a bowel disease that kills up to 50 percent of humans who contract it and is responsible for 8 percent neonatal intensive care unit admissions. “This industry is hurting all of us, especially those who are immunocompromised like I am,” Rosenberg, who has a chronic illness, told me.

“75% of new or emerging infectious diseases in humans come from animals,” the DxE report says. “We see the perfect breeding ground for such new diseases to emerge in the filthy, crowded, and disease-ridden conditions at Petaluma Poultry factory farms, particularly given the company’s inability to keep these diseases out of the slaughterhouse and the food supply.”

Police were called to the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse in response to Tuesday’s action, but all the activists on the property had left with the rescued chickens by the time cops entered the facility. None of the rescue participants on Tuesday morning have been arrested at the time of writing.

Hours before dawn on Tuesday, eight animal liberation activists entered the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse facility in Sonoma County, California, disguised as workers, with the aim of rescuing as many chickens as possible.

Meanwhile, approximately 175 protesters gathered outside the property, where up to 49,000 chickens are killed every day, and where animal rights activists allege animal abuses and risks to public health are rampant. Some of the demonstrators joined those who had entered the property to assist in the planned “open rescue” action: a tactic by which activists publicly remove ailing animals from factory farms and bring them to animal sanctuaries, while highlighting the harms of the meat and animal products industry.

By 3 a.m. PT, as partly captured in a video shared exclusively with The Intercept, activists had removed 11 chickens from trucks that had transported thousands of chickens onto the slaughterhouse property, packed together as tightly as physically possible. Seven more birds were rescued soon after from a truck on its way to the facility.

I'm in Tuesday’s rescue and demonstration, organized by activists affiliated with animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE, coincided with the release of a report from the group Tuesday morning. Shared with The Intercept and disseminated to regulatory agencies, the report alleges that Petaluma Poultry, a subsidiary of agribusiness giant Perdue Farms, is routinely violating animal cruelty laws and exposing the public to major health risks — including the possibility of future zoonotic disease pandemics — through brutal and negligent treatment of birds marketed as “free range” and “organic.”

The algorithm used for the cash relief program is broken, a Human Rights Watch report found.

A program spearheaded by the World Bank that uses algorithmic decision-making to means-test poverty relief money is failing the very people it’s intended to protect, according to a new report by Human Rights Watch. The anti-poverty program in question, known as the Unified Cash Transfer Program, was put in place by the Jordanian government.

Having software systems make important choices is often billed as a means of making those choices more rational, fair, and effective. In the case of the poverty relief program, however, the Human Rights Watch investigation found the algorithm relies on stereotypes and faulty assumptions about poverty.

“Its formula also flattens the economic complexity of people’s lives into a crude ranking.”

“The problem is not merely that the algorithm relies on inaccurate and unreliable data about people’s finances,” the report found. “Its formula also flattens the economic complexity of people’s lives into a crude ranking that pits one household against another, fueling social tension and perceptions of unfairness.” Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in

The program, known in Jordan as Takaful, is meant to solve a real problem: The World Bank provided the Jordanian state with a multibillion-dollar poverty relief loan, but it’s impossible for the loan to cover all of Jordan’s needs.

Without enough cash to cut every needy Jordanian a check, Takaful works by analyzing the household income and expenses of every applicant, along with nearly 60 socioeconomic factors like electricity use, car ownership, business licenses, employment history, illness, and gender. These responses are then ranked — using a secret algorithm — to automatically determine who are the poorest and most deserving of relief. The idea is that such a sorting algorithm would direct cash to the most vulnerable Jordanians who are in most dire need of it. According to Human Rights Watch, the algorithm is broken.

The rights group’s investigation found that car ownership seems to be a disqualifying factor for many Takaful applicants, even if they are too poor to buy gas to drive the car.

Similarly, applicants are penalized for using electricity and water based on the presumption that their ability to afford utility payments is evidence that they are not as destitute as those who can’t. The Human Rights Watch report, however, explains that sometimes electricity usage is high precisely for poverty-related reasons. “For example, a 2020 study of housing sustainability in Amman found that almost 75 percent of low-to-middle income households surveyed lived in apartments with poor thermal insulation, making them more expensive to heat.”

In other cases, one Jordanian household may be using more electricity than their neighbors because they are stuck with old, energy-inefficient home appliances.

Beyond the technical problems with Takaful itself are the knock-on effects of digital means-testing. The report notes that many people in dire need of relief money lack the internet access to even apply for it, requiring them to find, or pay for, a ride to an internet café, where they are subject to further fees and charges to get online.

“Who needs money?” asked one 29-year-old Jordanian Takaful recipient who spoke to Human Rights Watch. “The people who really don’t know how [to apply] or don’t have internet or computer access.”

Human Rights Watch also faulted Takaful’s insistence that applicants’ self-reported income match up exactly with their self-reported household expenses, which “fails to recognize how people struggle to make ends meet, or their reliance on credit, support from family, and other ad hoc measures to bridge the gap.”

The report found that the rigidity of this step forced people to simply fudge the numbers so that their applications would even be processed, undermining the algorithm’s illusion of objectivity. “Forcing people to mold their hardships to fit the algorithm’s calculus of need,” the report said, “undermines Takaful’s targeting accuracy, and claims by the government and the World Bank that this is the most effective way to maximize limited resources.” Related AI Tries (and Fails) to Detect Weapons in Schools

The report, based on 70 interviews with Takaful applicants, Jordanian government workers, and World Bank personnel, emphasizes that the system is part of a broader trend by the World Bank to popularize algorithmically means-tested social benefits over universal programs throughout the developing economies in the so-called Global South.

Confounding the dysfunction of an algorithmic program like Takaful is the increasingly held naïve assumption that automated decision-making software is so sophisticated that its results are less likely to be faulty. Just as dazzled ChatGPT users often accept nonsense outputs from the chatbot because the concept of a convincing chatbot is so inherently impressive, artificial intelligence ethicists warn the veneer of automated intelligence surrounding automated welfare distribution leads to a similar myopia.

The Jordanian government’s official statement to Human Rights Watch defending Takaful’s underlying technology provides a perfect example: “The methodology categorizes poor households to 10 layers, starting from the poorest to the least poor, then each layer includes 100 sub-layers, using statistical analysis. Thus, resulting in 1,000 readings that differentiate amongst households’ unique welfare status and needs.”

“These are technical words that don’t make any sense together.”

When Human Rights Watch asked the Distributed AI Research Institute to review these remarks, Alex Hanna, the group’s director of research, concluded, “These are technical words that don’t make any sense together.” DAIR senior researcher Nyalleng Moorosi added, “I think they are using this language as technical obfuscation.”

As is the case with virtually all automated decision-making systems, while the people who designed Takaful insist on its fairness and functionality, they refuse to let anyone look under the hood. Though it’s known Takaful uses 57 different criteria to rank poorness, the report notes that the Jordanian National Aid Fund, which administers the system, “declined to disclose the full list of indicators and the specific weights assigned, saying that these were for internal purposes only and ‘constantly changing.’”

While fantastical visions of “Terminator”-like artificial intelligences have come to dominate public fears around automated decision-making, other technologists argue civil society ought to focus on real, current harms caused by systems like Takaful, not nightmare scenarios drawn from science fiction.

So long as the functionality of Takaful and its ilk remain government and corporate secrets, the extent of those risks will remain unknown.