text:
The digital divide's great leap forward
'SMS till you drop' mobile phone ad on van in Kampala, Uganda. Future Atlas under a Creative Commons Licence
We need to harness the innovation from today's technology revolution to better serve people's needs, writes Chris Spannos.
Skyrocketing smartphone ownership and internet usage globally is bridging the digital divide even as Western economies have higher rates of technology use, the Pew Research Center reported this week. However, even as more people use technology, the gap between the haves and have-nots grows deeper and wider.
The outcasts of the digital revolution include four billion people whose lives have so far been left largely untouched by the technological innovations in information and communication that most of us take for granted. That means that those of us reading this piece are among the lucky three billion.
Over the past decade, the number of internet users has grown rapidly – from 1 billion in 2005 to about 3.2 billion at the end of last year. Mass migration of people to the online sphere is, however, far from complete. This has resulted in tremendous differences in quality of life, both virtual and real.
Some 3.5 billion Google searches are run every day, yet nearly 17 per cent of the world's adult population are illiterate. Two-thirds of these are women. While 500 million Facebook users watch 8 billion videos per day, 67.4 million children are not in school. Snapchat's 100 million daily active and largely young users share nearly 9 thousand photos per second; but 122 million youth – more than 60 per cent of whom are young women – are illiterate.
The positive aspects of digital technology are real, but the benefits are not shared equally. In being disconnected from the internet, more than half the world's population are excluded from its benefits, evolution and governance. Those who are connected lose out on the participation, diversity and input of those excluded.
The digital divide parallels existing inequities in the allocation of goods and services. Oxfam recently reported that the richest one per cent now have more wealth than the rest of the world combined. 'Power and privilege is being used to skew the economic system to increase the gap between the richest and the rest,' the NGO states. In its 2016 report Digital Dividends, the World Bank explains that households in the Majority World are more likely to own a mobile phone than have access to electricity or clean water.
While those in the Majority World lack access to education, electricity and clean water, many of us in the Global North are benefiting from the ever-developing 'Internet of Things'. Smart refrigerators can be programmed to detect when you need your next grocery delivery, and order milk and eggs for delivery to your doorstep. At the same time, malnutrition sentences to death nearly 3.1 million children under the age of five, every year. Intelligent cars can turn home-heating and alarm systems on or off as they pull into the driveway. In the same world, 1.6 billion people live in inadequate shelter and more than 100 million people remain homeless.
RELATED: Will 'IoT' boost surveillance capabilities? By Chris Spannos
Evolving technological developments could be applied to reduce global injustices in access to basic economic and social rights, and limit our carbon footprint. In reality, they are being designed to promote lifestyles of leisure. An estimated 89 million tonnes of food are wasted each year within the European Union. Smart technology could help reallocate resources more fairly, including to benefit the hungry.
Instead, the West is entering a new gilded age of digital decadence that provides a thin veneer over historic injustices. The coltan that powers our smartphones is mined by workers in the Democratic Republic of Congo who struggle to make decent wages. Technological waste – generated by the cycle of purchasing the latest upgraded device – creates mountains of pollution. Scratch the surface of the digital revolution and you will find full ultra-high definition inequity.
Many experts believe that the solution to the digital divide is getting more people hooked up and connected to information and communication technologies. That is because, for many in the Majority World, digital technology has had real benefits.
Mobile phones have reduced the cost of sending money to friends and family by making digital remittance payments possible. The World Bank reports that 1 billion people with disabilities – 80 per cent of whom live in developing countries – use text, voice and video technology to help them communicate. Almost 2.5 billion people lack formal identification records such as birth certificates and licences, creating huge obstacles for those seeking health and social services. Digital systems can help provide these much-needed records.
The UN has declared the internet essential for achieving its Sustainable Development Goals – to tackle poverty, hunger, health and education – by 2030. While the benefits are tangible and impossible to dismiss, there is a dark side to the proposals for more technology and connectivity as the solution to overcoming the divide.
While digital technology is seen as enabling innovation and opportunity for the poor and disadvantaged, many development institutions and NGOs propose solutions that spring from the neoliberal paradigm. This paradigm proposes reforms in Majority World countries that deregulate telecommunications markets and advance privatization. Through more business investment and greater competition, 'economic growth' can be realized, is the argument.
RELATED: Growth is the only way, by Dinyar Godrej, from '10 Economics Myths that we need to junk', December 2015, New Internationalist magazine
Yet neoliberal economic policies have caused the inequities that riddle almost every country across the globe. If such approaches are followed, a few digital technology empires – based largely in the Global North – will profit, and though their promised technology may bring benefits and prosperity to a few, too many will continue to be left behind.
Technology itself is not the solution to global injustices. Solutions will come from the fair distribution and allocation of all resources – agricultural, material and digital. Forecasts suggest that the scientific, legal and cultural barriers to creating many emerging technologies will reproduce future disparities in wealth and power between nations. The US is currently much better positioned to develop nanotechnologies and conduct stem-cell research than many countries in Latin America and Africa, for example. The existing system with new tools will lead to the same old results, or – worse – entrenched and deepened inequalities.
Overcoming the digital divide means rethinking the technological capabilities that are possible and reconfiguring them to serve human needs, rather than reproducing past and new disparities in wealth and power.
Chris Spannos is Digital Editor at New Internationalist. The May issue of our magazine will take a special look at technology and development.
Help us produce more like this
Patreon is a platform that enables us to offer more to our readership. With a new podcast, eBooks, tote bags and magazine subscriptions on offer, as well as early access to video and articles, we're very excited about our Patreon! If you're not on board yet then check it out here.
Support us »
Chris Spannos
Chris Spannos is Digital Editor for New Internationalist. He has been a journalist for nearly two decades producing media across digital and print media platforms. In 2014 he was a founding Web Editor at teleSUR English in Quito, Ecuador. Chris...
More about Chris Spannos
New Internationalist is a lifeline for activists, campaigners and readers who value independent journalism. It is free to read online – please support us so we can keep it that way.
Support us » Support us » Support us »
Introducing... Decolonize How?
New Internationalist launches a one-year series exploring responses to poverty that address the reality of post-independence...
Please continue to not sponsor this child
Kathleen Nolan examines a simplistic non-solution to complex problems.
What can the digital age offer political life?
Indra Adnan argues that 'cosmolocalism' could be the key to a stronger, more hopeful democracy.
Dreams of magic bullets
Richard Swift warns against vaccine fantasy and kneejerk technophilia.
The space invaders
Psychoanalyst Adam Phillips talks about our need for privacy in a digital age.
How to talk with conspiracy theorists
Vanessa Baird offers some nifty tips in tackling a growing problem.
How we are gulled
Propaganda and media expert Peter Pomerantsev on tackling disinformation and the power of the digital platforms.
It's official, the global economy is a 'debtor's prison'
As the World Bank and IMF sound the alarm on debts driven sky high by Covid-19 in some of the world's poorest nations, Nick...
Could the SDGs deliver on their promises?
We are a third of the way towards 2030, the target date for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Gary Rynhart and Jan...
Broken bonds
Liam Taylor on the World Bank's waning reputation in pandemic response.
We can't grow our way out of poverty
In an era of planet-wide ecological breakdown, the conventional wisdom of the growth model is crashing to an end. Jason Hickel...
A brief history of impoverishment
Poverty between – and within – nations doesn't just exist. It is created and needs constant maintenance.
Poverty: shut out
Poverty is not down to chance or bad choices. It's hard wired into a deeply unequal economic system. But it doesn't have to be...
Should I delete my Facebook account?
Agony Uncle weighs in on whether to finally do away with social media.
Spectacle and reality in Rio
Sporting mega-events purport to boost civic pride and economic growth. But their true legacy is one of rampant gentrification,...
What if...we regulated digital technology for the public good?
Jacob Ohrvik-Stott from Doteveryone on how to get the job done.
Networked but commodified: digital labour in the remote gig economy
Research by Alex J. Wood, Mark Graham and others shows how gig economy platforms commodify labour in Southeast Asia and Sub-...
Beyond Davos: Fighting inequality on the frontline
On the eve of yet another World Economic Forum, Zubair Sayed looks at how people are mobilizing to find solutions to social...
What if social media firms paid us?
Exploitation by tech firms is not inevitable, suggests Vanessa Baird.
What should Twitter censor?
Forget shadow banning, we need to talk about holding private censors accountable, argues Jillian York.
Challenging exploitation in the gig economy
Global South workers in the digital platform-enabled gig economy are beginning to organize. Alex J. Wood and Mark Graham report.
The selfish giants
Laura Basu on how media ownership is getting more concentrated – and what to do about it.
Will EU copyright law 'carpet bomb' the digital world?
Article 13 of the EU's Copyright Directive, up for vote on 20 June, will impose mandatory upload filters on internet users....
Blueprint for a better media
11 strategies for a better media. Vanessa Baird writes.
Facebook: the new censor's office
Social media is usurping the role of the state argues Jillian York.
Dark clouds in Poland
Violeta Santos Moura reports from Poland, where reliance on coal kills some 45,000 people each year.
The efficiency myth
Nick Dowson dismantles the notion that the private sector does things better.
Will new laws tame the tech giants?
Are these new privacy laws the best solution? Mike Morel investigates.
Humanitarian drones and other anachronisms
Aid-by-drone, what's not to like? New tech in the sector brings many problems, Nick Dowson explains.
Why make women suffer twice?
Don't cut Oxfam's support – we need it to root out abuse, says Colombian feminist Gloria Sanchez.
When disaster strikes, put women in charge
Oxfam's Haiti sex scandal highlights how girls and young women are most at risk in emergencies. Vanessa Baird makes the case...
The trashing of Oxfam
Abuse must be eradicated but the attack on Oxfam is disproportionate, argues Maggie Black in this opinion piece
Why defunding Oxfam won't stop abuse
'The idea of altruistic morality puts aid workers in a double bind, eroding true responsibility'
The convenience of smart fridges? Think again
A dystopian short story by Pat Cadigan on the future internet of things.
The revolution will not be iPhoned
Is digital technology leading us astray, asks Rev Billy.
How creativity is killed in the Majority World
Tamara Pearson explains why the poor are not taken seriously on creative stages.
Japan: building the future, living in the past?
How Japanese society and robots match up, by Christopher Simons.
The age of disruption
The vision of the future we are fed will leave many of us reeling, writes Dinyar Godrej. For what?
Killer robots: the race for Autonomous Weapons
Noel Sharkey's stark warning against the latest arms race.
Robots, not humans: official policy in China
Industrial robots are being put to work on a huge scale. Jenny Chan looks at the case of Foxconn.


Played 3 straight Dominion matches and got nothing but a message claiming rewards will be added later.
********, they are never added later. Fix your damn game.
This should have been fixed yesterday but if you're still having problems please let me know right away!
Shouldve been fixed way before that. Even I noticed this happens everytime a season ends for xbox anyway.
During that day, there was a large outage to many Ubisoft services, not just For Honor.


text:
Privacy First supports Dutch lawsuit against coronavirus entry pass
Despite an urgent call by Privacy First to the Dutch House of Representatives to block the coronavirus entry pass, the introduction of this pass throughout The Netherlands as of 25 September 2021 unfortunately seems to be a reality. Privacy First expects that this will lead to division of Dutch society, exclusion of vulnerable groups, discrimination and violation of everyone's right to privacy. Moreover, the introduction of this pass leads to vaccination coercion, which violates everyone's right to dispose freely of their own body. This is incompatible with the right to physical integrity and self-determination and fuels the undermining of our trust in the democratic rule of law, in which these fundamental rights are enshrined.
With massive encroachment and violation of human rights looming, it is up to the courts to intervene and correct the government. In line with our statutory objective to take action in the public interest, the current lawsuit by Dutch attorney Bart Maes and others to stop the coronavirus entry pass therefore has our full support. Privacy First would like to emphasize that this is not a statement against vaccination (on the contrary), but that it is crucial to fully respect and protect everyone's human rights, especially in these times. Critical voices should be taken seriously and not be dismissed on emotional grounds. In both the short and the long term, this is the best guarantee for an open, free and healthy society.
Privacy First calls on Dutch House of Representatives to block coronavirus entry pass
Today, Privacy First sent the following plea to the Dutch House of Representatives:
It is with great disapproval that the Privacy First Foundation has taken note of the planned introduction of coronavirus entry passes for bars and restaurants, events and cultural institutions. This will lead to a division in society, exclusion of vulnerable groups and a massive violation of everyone's right to privacy. Below, Privacy First will briefly explain this.
Serious violation of fundamental rights
The coronavirus entry pass ('corona pass') constitutes a serious infringement of numerous fundamental human rights, including the right to privacy, physical self-determination, bodily integrity and freedom of movement in conjunction with other classic human rights such as the right to participate in cultural life and various children's rights such as the right to recreation. Any curtailment of these rights must be strictly necessary, proportionate and effective. In the case of the corona pass, however, this has not been demonstrated to date and the required necessity is simply being assumed in the public interest. More privacy-friendly alternatives to reopen and normalize society seem never to have been seriously considered. For these reasons alone, the corona pass cannot pass the human rights test and should therefore be repealed. In this context, Privacy First would also like to remind you of countries such as England, Belgium and Denmark where a similar pass was deliberately not introduced, or has been done way with not long after its introduction. In the Netherlands, there has been a great lack of support in recent days for the corona pas and many thousands of entrepreneurs have already let it be known that they will not cooperate. Privacy First therefore expects that the introduction of the corona pass will lead to massive civil disobedience and successful lawsuits against the Dutch government.
The introduction of the corona pass violates the general prohibition of discrimination, as it introduces a broad social distinction based on medical status. This puts a strain on social life and may lead to widespread inequality, stigmatization, social segregation and even possible tensions, as large groups in society will not (or not systematically) want to, or will not be able to get tested or vaccinated (for a variety of reasons), or obtain a digital test or vaccination certificate. During our National Privacy Conference in early 2021, Privacy First already took the position that the introduction of a mandatory 'corona passport' would have a socially disruptive effect.[1] On that occasion, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, among others, explicitly took a stand against the introduction of such a passport. The aforementioned social risks apply all the more strongly to the vaccination coercion that is caused by the introduction of the corona pass. In this regard, Privacy First would like to remind you of the fact that both your House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have expressed their opposition to a direct or indirect vaccination requirement.[2] In addition, the corona pass will have the potential to set precedent for other medical conditions and other sectors of society, putting pressure on a much wider range of socio-economic human rights. For these reasons, Privacy First calls on you to block the introduction of the corona pass.
Multiple privacy violations
From the perspective of the right to privacy, there are a number of yet other specific concerns and questions. First of all, the corona pass introduces a mandatory 'health proof' for participation in a large part of social life, in flagrant violation of the right to privacy and the protection of personal data. Through the mandatory display of an ID card in addition to the corona pass, an entirely new identification requirement is created in public places. The existing anonymity in the public space is thus removed, with all the dangers and risks that this entails. Moreover, this new identification requirement raises questions about the capacities of entrepreneurs to determine the identity of a person and to assess the state of health by means of the corona pass.
Moreover, the underlying legislation results in the inconsistent application of existing legislation with regard to the same act, i.e. testing, with far-reaching consequences on the one hand for an important attainment such as medical confidentiality and the public's trust in that confidentiality, and on the other for the practical implementation of retention periods of the test results while the processing of these results does not change. After all, it is not the result of the test that should determine whether the registration of the testing falls under the Dutch Medical Treatment Agreement Act ('Wgbo', which requires medical confidentiality and a 20-year retention period) or the Dutch Public Health Act ('Wpg', which requires a 5-year retention period), but the act of testing itself. Besides, it is questionable why a connection was sought with the Wpg and/or Wgbo now that it is about obtaining a certificate for participation in society and it does not concern medical treatment (Wgbo) or public health tasks for that purpose. The only ground for processing personal data for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of the coronavirus and for breaching medical confidentiality, should be consent. However, in this case there cannot be the legally required freely given consent, since testing and vaccination will be a mandatory condition for participation in society.
Privacy requires clarity
Many other things are and remain unclear: what data will be stored, where, by whom and in which systems? To what extent will there be an international and European exchange of such data? Which parties with which purposes will have access to or will copy the data, or put these in huge new national databases together with our health data? Will we have constant personal localization and identification, or only occasional verification and authentication? Why can test results be kept for an unnecessarily long time? How great are the risks of hacking, data breaches, fraud and forgery? To what extent have decentralized, privacy-friendly technologies and privacy by design, open source software, data minimization and anonymization seriously been considered? How long will test certificates remain free of charge? Is work already underway to introduce an 'alternative digital medium' to the Dutch CoronaCheck app, namely a chip (card), with all the objections and risks that entails? Why has there been no independent Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)? How many more times must the country accept emergency laws to close privacy leaks, when our overburdened and understaffed Data Protection Authority is already noting that there is no legal basis for the processing of the data concerned? How will unforeseen uses and abuses, function creep and profiling be prevented, and how is privacy oversight arranged? Will non-digital, paper alternatives remain available at all times? Why is the 'yellow booklet' not accepted as a privacy-friendly alternative, as it is in other countries? What happens with the test material – i.e. everyone's DNA – at the various testing sites? And when will the corona pass be abolished? In other words, to what extent is this actually a 'temporary' measure?
In the view of Privacy First, the introduction of the corona pass will lead merely to an impractical burden on entrepreneurs, innumerable deficiencies and destruction of capital for society. Privacy First therefore requests that the members of the House of Representatives block the introduction of the corona pass. Failing to do so, Privacy First reserves the right to have the legislation introducing the corona pass reviewed against international and European law and declared inoperative by the courts. Preparations for such legal proceedings by us and many others are already underway.
Privacy First Foundation
[1] See National Privacy Conference 28 January 2021, https://youtu.be/asEX1jy4Tv0?t=9378, starting at 2h 36 min 18 sec.
[2] See Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2361 (2021): Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations, https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html, par. 7.3.1-7.3.2: ''Ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.'' See also, inter alia, Dutch House of Representatives, Motion by Member Azarkan on no corona vaccination requirement (28 October 2020), House of Representatives, 25295-676, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-25295-676.html: ''The House of Representatives (...) expresses that there should never be a direct or indirect corona vaccination obligation in the future''; Motion by Member Azarkan on access to public benefits for all regardless of vaccination or testing status (5 January 2021), House of Representatives 25295-864, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-25295-864.html: "The House of Representatives (...) requests the government to allow access to public benefits for all regardless of vaccination or testing status."
An earlier, similar version of this commentary appeared as early as March 2021: https://www.privacyfirst.eu/focus-areas/law-and-politics/695-privacy-first-position-concerning-the-dutch-draft-bill-on-covid-19-test-certificates.html.
Privacy First's position concerning the Dutch draft bill on COVID-19 test certificates
It is with great concern that Privacy First has taken note of the Dutch draft bill on COVID-19 test certificates. Under this bill, a negative COVID-19 test certificate will become mandatory for access to sporting and youth activities, all sorts of events and public places including bars and restaurants and cultural and higher education institutions, Those who have no such certificates risk getting high fines. This will put pressure on everyone's right to privacy.
The draft bill severely infringes numerous fundamental and human rights, including the right to privacy, physical integrity and freedom of movement in combination with other relevant human rights such as the right to participate in cultural life, the right to education and various children's rights such as the right to recreation. Any curtailment of these rights must be strictly necessary, proportionate and effective. However, the current draft bill fails to demonstrate this, while the required necessity in the public interest is simply assumed. More privacy-friendly alternatives to reopen and normalize society do not seem to have been considered. For these reasons alone, the proposal cannot pass the human rights test and should therefore be withdrawn.
The proposal also violates the general prohibition of discrimination, as it introduces a broad social distinction based on medical status. This puts pressure on social life and may lead to large-scale inequality, stigmatization, social segregation and even possible tensions, as large groups in society will not (or not systematically) want to or will not be able to get tested (for various reasons). During the recent Dutch National Privacy Conference organized by Privacy First and the Platform for the Information Society (ECP), it already became clear that the introduction of a mandatory 'corona passport' could have a socially disruptive effect.[1] On that occasion the Dutch Data Protection Authority, among others, took a strong stand against it. Such social risks apply all the more strongly to the indirect vaccination obligation that follows on from the corona test certificate. In this regard, Privacy First wants to recall that recently both the Dutch House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have expressed their opposition to a direct or indirect vaccination requirement.[2] In addition, the draft bill under consideration will have the potential to set precedents for other medical conditions and other sectors of society, putting pressure on a much broader range of socio-economic rights. For all of these reasons, Privacy First strongly recommends that the Dutch government withdraw this draft bill.
Moreover, from the perspective of the right to privacy, a number of specific objections and questions apply. First of all, the draft bill introduces a mandatory 'proof of healthiness' for participation in a large part of social life, in flagrant violation of the right to privacy and the protection of personal data. Also, the draft bill introduces an identification requirement at the entrance of public places, in violation of the right to anonymity in public spaces. The bill also results in the inconsistent application of existing legislation to the same act, namely testing, with far-reaching consequences on the one hand for a precious achievement like medical confidentiality and the trust of citizens in that confidentiality, and on the other hand for the practical implementation of retention periods while the processing of the test result does not change. After all, it is not the result of the test that should determine whether the file falls under the Dutch Medical Treatment Contracts Act (WGBO, which has a medical secrecy requirement and a retention period of 20 years) or under the Public Health Act (with a retention period of five years), but the act of testing itself. Moreover, it is unclear why the current draft bill seeks to connect to the Public Health Act and/or WGBO if it only concerns obtaining a test certificate for the purpose of participating in society (and therefore no medical treatment or public health task for that purpose). Here, the only possibility for processing and for breaching medical confidentiality should be the basis of consent. In this case, however, there cannot be the legally required freely given consent, since testing will be a compelling condition for participation in society.
Many other issues are still unclear: which data will be stored, where, by whom, and which data may possibly be exchanged? To what extent will there be personal localization and identification as opposed to occasional verification and authentication? Why may test results be kept for an unnecessarily long time (five or even 20 years)? How great are the risks of hacking, data breaches, fraud and forgery? To what extent will there be decentralized, privacy-friendly technology, privacy by design, open source software, data minimization and anonymization? Will test certificates remain free of charge and to what extent will privacy-friendly diversity and choice in testing applications be possible? Is work already underway to introduce an 'alternative digital carrier' in place of the Dutch CoronaCheck app, namely a chip, with all the risks that entails? How will function creep and profiling be prevented and are there any arrangements when it comes to data protection supervision? Will non-digital, paper alternatives always remain available? What will happen to the test material taken, i.e. everyone's DNA? And when will the corona test certificates be abolished?
As long as such concerns and questions remain unanswered, submission of this bill makes no sense at all and the corona test certificate will only lead to the destruction of social capital. Privacy First therefore reiterates its request that the current proposal be withdrawn and not submitted to Parliament. Failing this, Privacy First will reserve the right to have the matter reviewed by the courts and declared unlawful.
[1] See the Dutch National Privacy Conference, 28 January 2021, https://youtu.be/asEX1jy4Tv0?t=9378, starting at 2h 36 min 18 sec.
[2] See Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2361 (2021): Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations, https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html, par. 7.3.1-7.3.2: "Ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated." See also, for example, Dutch House of Representatives, Motion by Member Azarkan on No Corona Vaccination Obligation (28 October 2020), Parliamentary Document 25295-676, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-25295-676.html: "The House (...) pronounces that there should never be a direct or indirect coronavirus vaccination obligation in the future"; Motion by Member Azarkan on Access to Public Benefits for All Regardless of Vaccination or Testing Status (5 January 2021), Parliamentary Document 25295-864, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-25295-864.html: "The House (...) requests the government to enable access to public services for all regardless of vaccination or testing status.'
Privacy First's position concerning the pandemic curfew in the Netherlands
In the fight against the coronavirus, the Dutch government this week made clear that the introduction of a curfew is imminent. Because of this, Privacy First today has sent the following appeal to the Dutch House of Representatives:
This week the Netherlands finds itself at a historical human rights crossroads: is a nation-wide curfew going to be introduced for the first time since World War II? For Privacy First such a far-reaching, generic measure would be disproportionate and far from necessary in virtually every situation. Moreover, in the fight against the coronavirus the effectiveness of such a measure remains unknown to this date. For that alone, there can be no legally required social necessity of a curfew. A curfew could in fact also be counterproductive, as it would harm the mental and (therefore also) physical health of large groups in society. Besides, a curfew in the Netherlands is yet another step towards a surveillance society. The use of lighter, targeted and more effective measures is always preferable. Should a curfew nonetheless be introduced, Privacy First would consider it a massive violation of the right to privacy and freedom of movement. Privacy First therefore calls on you to not let this happen and to thwart the introduction of a curfew.
Update 17 February 2021: this week, in summary proceedings, the district court of The Hague handed down a ground-breaking ruling that says that the curfew was wrongly introduced under the Dutch Extraordinary Powers Act. The current Dutch curfew is therefore unlawful. Moreover, the court found that there are "major question marks regarding the factual substantiation by the State of the necessity of the curfew. (...) Before a far-reaching restriction such as a curfew is introduced, it must be clear that no other, less far-reaching measures are available and that the introduction of the curfew will actually have a substantial effect", stated the court, without the conviction that this was the case. In addition, the court raised the question of why an urgent (but voluntary) curfew advice had not been chosen. The court also noted that "the Dutch Outbreak Management Team, according to the team itself, has no evidence that the curfew will make a substantial contribution to reducing the spread of the virus." All this "makes the State's assertion that a curfew is inevitable at least debatable and without convincing justification", the court concluded. (See judgment (in Dutch), paragraphs 4.12-4.14.)
The judgment of the district court of The Hague is in line with Privacy First's earlier position. Privacy First hopes that this will be confirmed on appeal by the Hague Court of Appeal and that it will also lead to the rejection of the curfew by both the Dutch House of Representatives and the Senate.
Critical hearing in Dutch Parliament on Corona app
Yesterday, there was a hearing in the Dutch House of Representatives in which the by now notorious Corona app was critically discussed. The House had invited various experts and organizations (among which Privacy First) to submit position papers and take part in the hearing. Below is both the full text of our position paper, as well as the text which was read out at the hearing. A video of the entire hearing (in Dutch) can be found HERE. Click HERE for the program, all speakers and position papers.
Thank you kindly for your invitation to take part in this roundtable discussion about the so-called Corona app. In the view of Privacy First, apps like these are a threat to everyone's privacy. We will briefly clarify this below.
Lack of necessity and effectiveness
With great concern, Privacy First has taken note of the intention of the Dutch government to employ a contact tracing app in the fight against the coronavirus. Thus far, the social necessity of such apps has not been proven, while the experience of other countries indicates there is ground to seriously doubt their benefit and effectiveness. In fact, these apps may even be counterproductive as their use leads to a false sense of safety. Moreover, it's very hard to involve the most vulnerable group of people (the elderly) through this means. This should already be enough reason to refrain from using Corona apps.
Surveillance society
In Privacy First's view, the use of such apps is a dangerous development because it could lead to stigmatization and numerous unfounded suspicions, and may also cause unnecessary unrest and panic. Even when 'anonymized', the data from these apps can still be traced back to individuals through data fusion. In case this technology will be introduced on a large scale, it will result in a surveillance society in which everyone is being continuously monitored – something people will be acutely aware of and would lead to an imminent societal chilling effect.
Risks of misuse
There is a significant risk that the collected data will be used for multiple purposes (function creep) and be misused by both companies and public authorities. The risk of surreptitious access, hacking, data breaches and misuse is substantial, particularly in the case of central instead of decentral (personal) storage as well as a lack of open source software. However, not even the use of personal storage offers any warranty against misuse, malware and spyware, or, for that matter, makes users less dependent on technical vulnerabilities. Moreover, if the data fall into the hands of criminal organizations, they will be a gold mine for criminal activities.
For Privacy First, the risks of Corona apps do not outweigh their presumed benefits. Therefore, Privacy First advises the House to urge the cabinet not to proceed with the introduction of such apps.
Testing instead of apps
According to Privacy First, there is a better and more effective solution in the fight against the coronavirus. One that is based on the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, i.e., large scale testing of people to learn about infection rates and immunization. To this end, the necessary test capacity should become available as soon as possible.
Haste is rarely a good thing
If, despite all the above-mentioned objections, it will be decided there is going to be a Corona app after all, then this should come about only after a careful social and democratic process with sufficiently critical, objective and independent scrutiny. This has not been the case so far, judging by the developments of the past few days. In this context, Privacy First recommends that the House calls on the cabinet to put its plans on ice and impose a moratorium on the use of Corona apps.
The right to anonymity in public space is a fundamental right, one that is crucial for the functioning of our democratic constitutional state. Any democratic decision to nullify this right is simply unacceptable. If indeed the deployment of 'Corona apps' will be widespread, then at least their use should be strictly anonymous and voluntary. That is to say, they should be used only for a legitimate, specific purpose, following individual, prior consent without any form of outside pressure and on the premise that all the necessary information is provided. In this respect, privacy by design (embedding privacy protection in technology) must be a guiding principle. For Privacy First, these are stringent and non-negotiable prerequisites. In case these conditions are not met, Privacy First will not hesitate to bring proceedings before a court.
You have received our position paper, this is our oral explanation.
First of all: Privacy First is firmly against any form of surveillance infrastructure, with or without apps.
With this in mind, we look at three legal principles:
Legitimate purpose limitation.
- What is the problem?
- What is the scale of the problem?
- What are possible objectives, how can we achieve these objectives, and how can we measure progress towards them?
It's already impossible to answer the first question as we now test partially and selectively. The total infected population is unknown, the people who have recovered are unknown also, and do not get reported. There is, however, fearmongering as a result of emotions and selective reporting; deaths with multiple causes (die with as opposed to die from Corona) and admittance to critical care units.
Let us be clear, we will first have to map out the causes of this problem before we can draw conclusions and talk about solutions. Not only IT professionals and virologists should be involved in this, to no lesser extent we need philosophers, legal scholars, sociologists, entrepreneurs and others who represent society also.
Necessity and proportionality. In terms of test capacity, critical care units, medical materials and medical personnel, we essentially have a capacity problem. So, there is no doubt in our mind what we should be focusing on, also in view of future outbreaks; testing the entire population in order to tell who is infected and who is immune, and be able to determine the real problem. 97% of the population is unaffected. Make sure there will be a division and proper care for high-risk groups. Halt crisis communication and start crisis management. Take all treatment methods seriously, including those that are not profitable for Big Pharma and Big Tech.
Subsidiarity. Once we know the problem, we may ask what the solutions are. Additional personnel at municipal health centers? Building a critical care unit hospital specifically for situations like these? Increasing the test capacity in order to be able to take decisions based on figures? All of this is possible within our current health system, with the general practitioner as the first point of contact.
On the basis of trust, we have given our government six weeks to get its act together. And what do we get in return? Distrust and monitoring tools. And still shortages of medical equipment. So, fix the fundamentals, deal with the treatment and test capacity and stop building new technological gadgets and draconian apps used in dictatorial regimes in Asia. And take The Netherlands out of this prolonged lockdown as soon as possible. Privacy First is opposed to a '1.5-meter society' as the new normal, and is instead in favor of a common-sense society based on trust in mature citizens.
Corona apps are a danger to everyone's privacy
With great concern, Privacy First has taken note of the intention of the Dutch government to employ special apps in the fight against the coronavirus. In Privacy First's view, the use of such apps is a dangerous development because it could lead to stigmatisation and numerous unfounded suspicions, and may also cause unnecessary unrest and panic. Even when 'anonymized', the data from these apps can still be traced back to individuals through data fusion. In case this technology will be introduced on a large scale, it will result in a surveillance society in which everyone is being continuously monitored – something people will be acutely aware of and would lead to an imminent societal chilling effect. Furthermore, there is a substantial risk that the collected data will be used and misued for multiple (illegitimate) purposes by companies and public authorities. Moreover, if these data fall into the hands of criminal organizations, they will be a gold mine for criminal activities. For Privacy First, these risks of Corona apps do not outweigh their presumed benefits.
Dutch privacy violations on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Committee
On July 1 and 2, 2019, the Netherlands will be examined in Geneva by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This UN body is tasked with supervising the compliance of one of the oldest and most important human rights treaties in the world: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Each country which is a contracting party to the ICCPR is subject to periodical review by the UN Human Rights Committee. At the beginning of next week, the Dutch government must answer before the Committee for various current privacy issues that have been put on the agenda by Privacy First among others.
The previous Dutch session before the UN Human Rights Committee dates from July 2009, when the Dutch minister of Justice Ernst Hirsch Ballin had to answer for the then proposed central storage of fingerprints under the new Dutch Passport Act. This was a cause for considerable criticism of the Dutch government. Now, ten years on, the situation in the Netherlands will be examined once more. Against this background, Privacy First had submitted to the Committee a critical report (pdf) at the end of 2016, and has recently supplemented this with a new report (pdf). In a nutshell, Privacy First has brought the following current issues to the attention of the Committee:
- the limited admissibility of interest groups in class action lawsuits
- the Dutch ban on judicial review of the constitutionality of laws
- profiling
- Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
- border control camera system @MIGO-BORAS
- the Dutch public transport chip card ('OV-chipkaart')
- Electronic Health Record systems
- possible reintroduction of the Telecommunications Data Retention Act
- the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act ('Tapping Law')
- PSD2
- Passenger Name Records (PNR)
- the Dutch abolition of consultative referendums
- the Dutch non-recognition of the international prohibition of propaganda for war.
The entire Dutch session before the Committee can be watched live on UN Web TV on Monday afternoon, July 1, and Tuesday morning, July 2. In addition to privacy issues, several Dutch organizations have put numerous other human rights issues on the agenda of the Committee; click HERE for an overview, which also features the previously established List of Issues (including the new Intelligence and Security Services Act, the possible reintroduction of the retention of telecommunications data, camera system @MIGO-BORAS, and medical confidentiality with health insurance companies). The Committee will likely present its 'Concluding Observations' within a matter of weeks. Privacy First awaits the outcome of these observations with confidence.
Update July 26, 2019: yesterday afternoon the Committee has published its Concluding Observations on the human rights situation in the Netherlands, which includes critical opinions on two privacy issues that were brought to the attention of the Committee by Privacy First:
The Intelligence and Security Services Act
The Committee is concerned about the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, which provides intelligence and security services with broad surveillance and interception powers, including bulk data collection. It is particularly concerned that the Act does not seem to provide for a clear definition of bulk data collection for investigation related purpose; clear grounds for extending retention periods for information collected; and effective independent safeguards against bulk data hacking. It is also concerned by the limited practical possibilities for complaining, in the absence of a comprehensive notification regime to the Dutch Oversight Board for the Intelligence and Security Services (CTIVD) (art. 17).
The State party should review the Act with a view to bringing its definitions and the powers and limits on their exercise in line with the Covenant and strengthen the independence and effectiveness of CTIVD and the Committee overseeing intelligence efforts and competences that has been established by the Act.
The Market Healthcare Act
The Committee is concerned that the Act to amend the Market Regulation (Healthcare) Act allows health insurance company medical consultants access to individual records in the electronic patient registration without obtaining a prior, informed and specific consent of the insured and that such practice has been carried out by health insurance companies for many years (art. 17).
The State party should require insurance companies to refrain from consulting individual medical records without a consent of the insured and ensure that the Bill requires health insurance companies to obtain a prior and informed consent of the insured to consult their records in the electronic patient registration and provide for an opt-out option for patients that oppose access to their records.
During the session in Geneva the abolition of the referendum and the camera system @MIGO-BORAS were also critically looked at. However, Privacy First regrets that the Committee makes no mention of these and various other current issues in its Concluding Observations. Nevertheless, the report by the Committee shows that the issue of privacy is ever higher on the agenda of the United Nations. Privacy First welcomes this development and will continue in the coming years to encourage the Committee to go down this path. Moreover, Privacy First will ensure that the Netherlands will indeed implement the various recommendations by the Committee.
The entire Dutch Session before the Committee can be watched on UN Web TV (1 July and 2 July). See also the extensive UN reports, part 1 and part 2 (pdf).
PNR: Every airline passenger a potential suspect
Today an important debate will take place in the Dutch House of Representatives about the introduction of Passenger Name Records (PNR): the large scale, years-long storage of all sorts of data of airline passengers, supposedly to fight crime and terrorism. Privacy First has major objections and at the end of last week has sent the following letter to the House. Today's parliamentary debate was first scheduled to take place on 14 May 2018, but was cancelled (following a similar letter from Privacy First) until further notice. Following new parliamentary questions, the debate will now take place today after all. Here is the full text of our most recent letter:
Dear Members of the House of Representatives,
On Monday afternoon, this 11 March, you will discuss the Dutch implementation of the European directive on Passenger Name Records (PNR) with minister Grapperhaus (Justice and Security). In Privacy First's view, both the European PNR directive as well as the Dutch implementation thereof are legally untenable. We shall here briefly elucidate our position.
Holiday register
Under the minister's legislative proposal concerning PNR, numerous data of every single airline passenger travelling to or from the Netherlands will be stored for five years in a central government database of the new Passenger Information Unit and will be used to prevent, investigate and prosecute crimes and terrorism. Sensitive personal data (such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, travel data, ID document numbers, destinations, fellow passengers and payment data) of many millions of passengers will, as a result, become available for many years for the purpose of data mining and profiling. In essence, this means that every airline passenger will be treated as a potential criminal or terrorist. In 99.9% of all cases, however, this concerns perfectly innocent citizens, mainly holidaymakers and business travellers. This is a flagrant breach of their right to privacy and freedom of movement. Last year, Privacy First had already made these arguments in the Volkskrant and on BNR Nieuwsradio. Because of privacy objections, in recent years there has been a lot of political resistance to such large scale PNR storage of data, which has been rejected by both the House of Representatives as well as the European Parliament on several occasions since 2010. In 2015, Dutch ruling parties VVD and PvdA were absolutely opposed to PNR as well. Back then, they called it a 'holiday register' and they themselves threatened to take to the European Court of Justice in case the PNR directive would be adopted. However, after the attacks in Paris and Brussels, it seemed that many political restraints had evaporated and in 2016, the PNR directive finally came about after all. Up to now however, the legally required necessity and proportionality of this directive have still to be demonstrated.
European Court
In the summer of 2017, the European Court of Justice issued an important ruling with regard to the similar PNR agreement between the EU and Canada. The Court declared this agreement invalid because it violates the right to privacy. Among other things, the Court held that the envisaged agreement must, "limit the retention of PNR data after the air passengers' departure to that of passengers in respect of whom there is objective evidence from which it may be inferred that they may present a risk in terms of the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime." (See Opinion 1/15 (26 July 2017), par. 207.) Ever since this ruling, the European PNR directive is a legal uncertainty. Therefore, the Dutch government has valid ''concerns about the future viability of the PNR directive" (see Note in response to report, p. 23, in Dutch). Privacy First expects that the current PNR directive will soon be submitted to the European Court of Justice for judicial review and will then be declared unlawful. Subsequently, a situation will arise that is similar to the one we have witnessed a few years ago with regard to the European Telecommunications Data Retention Act: as soon as this European directive will be annulled, the Dutch implementing provisions will equally be invalidated in interim injunction proceedings.
The current Dutch PNR legislative proposal seems unlawful a priori because of a lack of demonstrable necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity. The legislative proposal comes down to mass surveillance of mostly innocent citizens; in the 2016 Tele2 case the European Court already ruled that this type of legislation is unlawful. Thereupon the Netherlands pledged before the UN Human Rights Council "to ensure that the collection and maintenance of data for criminal [investigation] purposes does not entail massive surveillance of innocent persons." The Netherlands now seems to renege on that promise. After all, a lot of completely unnecessary data of every airline passenger will be stored for years and can be used by various Dutch, European and even non-European government agencies. Moreover, the effectiveness of PNR has to date never been demonstrated, the minister himself affirmed: ''There is no statistical support" (see Note in response to report, p. 8, in Dutch). The risk of unjust suspicion and discrimination (due to fallible algorithms used for profiling) under the proposed PNR system is serious, which also increases the likelihood of delays and missed flights for innocent passengers. All the while, wanted persons will often stay under the radar and choose alternative travel routes. Furthermore, the legislative proposal entirely fails to address the role and capabilities of secret services, which will be granted secret and shielded access to the central PNR database under the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act. However, the most questionable aspect of the Dutch PNR legislative proposal is that it goes even two steps further than the European PNR directive itself: After all, it is the Dutch government's own decision to also store the data of passengers on all intra-EU flights. This is not obligatory under the PNR directive, and the Netherlands could have limited this to preselected flights (judged to be at risk) only. This would have been in line with the advice of most experts in this field who argue for targeted actions as opposed to mass surveillance. In other words, to focus on persons with a reasonable suspicion about them, in accordance with the principles of our democracy under the rule of law.
Privacy First Advice
Privacy First strongly advises you to reject the current legislative proposal and to replace it with a privacy-friendly version. In case this will lead to the European Commission referring the Netherlands to the European Court of Justice due to a lack of implementation of the present PNR directive, Privacy First would be confident this would end in a clear victory for the Netherlands. EU Member States simply cannot be expected to implement privacy-violating EU rules. This applies equally to the national implementation of relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council (in this case UNSC Res. 2396 (2017)) which is similarly at odds with international human rights law. In this respect, Privacy First has already warned of the abuse of the Dutch TRIP system (which is also used for PNR) by other UN Member States. In this regard, the Netherlands has its own responsibility under the Dutch Constitution as well as under international law.
For further information or questions with respect to the issues above, feel free to contact Privacy First at all times by phone (+31-20-8100279) or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Update 19 March 2019: Regrettably, today the House of Representatives has adopted the legislative proposal almost unchanged; only GroenLinks, SP, PvdD and Denk voted against. Unfortunately, a motion by GroenLinks and SP to provoke legal action by the European Commission against the Dutch government about the PNR directive was rejected. The only bright spot is the widely adopted motion for the judicial reassessment and possible revision of the PNR directive at a European political level. (Only PVV and FvD voted against this motion.) Next stop: the Senate.
Update 4 June 2019: despite sending the above letter for a second time and despite other critical input by Privacy First, the Senate today has unfortunately adopted the legislative proposal. Only GroenLinks, PvdD and SP voted against. Even in spite of the enormous error rates (false positives) of 99.7% that recently came to light in the comparable German PNR system, see https://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/fluggastdaten-bka-falschtreffer-1.4419760. Meanwhile, large scale cases have been brought against the European PNR directive in Germany and Austria in order for the European Court of Justice to nullify it on account of violations of the right to privacy, see the German-English campaign website https://nopnr.eu and https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/05/15/burgers-in-verzet-tegen-opslaan-passagiersgegevens-a3960431. As soon as the European Court rules that the PNR directive is unlawful, Privacy First will start interim injunction proceedings in order for the Dutch PNR law to be rendered inoperative. Moreover, yesterday Privacy First has put the PNR law on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva. On 1 and 2 July 2019, the overall human rights situation in the Netherlands (including violations of the right to privacy) will be critically reviewed by this Committee.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Catalogue of His Own Collection — Early American Children's Books Rosenbach, A.S.W. Early American children's books. Portland, ME: Southworth Press, 1933. Stout 4to (27 cm; 10.625"). lix, 354 pp.,  leaves of plates; facsims. (some col.).
• One of 88 copies on Zerkall Halle paper and bound in blue pigskin, out of a total edition of 585 copies, this being copy XIII (i.e., 13), signed by Rosy below the number.
Rosenbach was the leading bookseller in America during the first half of the 20th century, helping to form the collections of Huntington, Folger, Widener, Doheny, Bell, Lilly, Clements, and many others. His personal collecting included American Judaica and Early American children's books. This is the highly illustrated and very bibliographically detailed catalogue of his personal collection of the latter. The collection was donated to the Free Library of Philadelphia.
The introduction is by A.E. Newton, Rosenbach's friend and customer, and a man whose own books on the joys of collecting helped fuel the fashion for it in the 1920s and 30s.
"An Agreeable Book, in Intervals of Leisure & Retirement" Saunders, Frederick. Salad for the solitary. New York: Lamport, Blakeman & Law, 1853. 8vo (19.8 cm, 7.8"). Frontis., add. engr. t.-p., 344, [2 (adv.)] pp.; illus.
• First edition of these meditations on life's pleasures: Fine dining, good company, flowers, "curious and costly books," pastimes and sports, the "fallacies and foibles of the literary profession," etc. The essays are illustrated with various in-text engravings by Avery and others.
History of the Church — Emphasis on BOOKS! Schelhorn, Johann Georg. Ergötzlichkeiten aus der kirchenhistorie und literatur. Ulm und Leipzig: Rosten der Bartholomäischen Handlung, 1762. 8vo (17.6 cm; 7"). I: , 185, , 188–374, , 380–566, , 572–746,  pp. II: , 188, , 194–380, , 386–567, , 578 –764,  pp. III: , 766–952, , 954–1139, , 1142–2128, , 2130–2282,  pp.
• History of the Protestant Church, complete with excerpts from foundational texts, here bound in three volumes. Schelhorn (1694–1773) was a Lutheran theologian who studied at the University of Jena before serving as a preacher and later superintendent for the city of Memmingen. Luther, Melanchton, and several popes' actions are discussed; the text (which is in a mix of fraktur, roman, and italic) also includes bibliographies of rare and prohibited books. In this copy, the contents of section four are bound near the start of vol. I instead of the most logical location.
Provenance: From the Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School (properly deaccessioned).
"Have You a Tamerlaine in Your Attic?" Starrett, Vincent. Penny wise and book foolish. New York: Covici Friede Publishers, 1929. 8vo (22.3 cm, 8.75"). Frontis., 199,  pp.; illus.
• First edition, second printing (stated) of this classic compilation of engaging anecdotes about book hunting, selling, collecting, binding, etc., written by the Toronto-born and Chicago-based novelist, newspaperman, Baker Street Irregular, and famed bibliophile, Vincent Starrett. Articles are well illustrated.
A difficult book to find in its dust jacket.
TEXAS-SIZE FRAUD! Taylor, W. Thomas. Texfake: An account of the theft and forgery of early Texas printed documents. Austin: W. Thomas Taylor, 1991. 8vo (26.3 cm; 10.375"). xix, [1 (blank)], 158 pp., 39 plts.
• Masterful account of the history of the plundering of Texas archives in the period from 1950 to 1980 combined with the related story of the fabrication, beginning in the 1960s, of fake copies of important, early, printed Texas historical documents. Taylor names those implicated and tells of how the fakery was slowly discovered.
For BIBLIO-FRAUD & FALSE IMPRINTS, click here.
A Beloved Victorian Author on an Equally Beloved Victorian Illustrator Thackeray, William Makepeace; W.E. Church, ed.; George Cruikshank, illus. On the genius of George Cruikshank ... reprinted verbatim from "The Westminster Review." Edited with a prefatory note on Thackeray as an artist and art-critic. London: George Redway, 1884. 8vo (22.5 cm, 8.875"). Frontis., , xvi, 60, [2 (adv.)] pp.; 1 plt.
• First book-form edition of a tribute originally published in The Westminster Review in 1840 — advertised by the publisher as "the most delightful of Thackeray's critical essays" (Book-Lore, Dec. 1884). In addition to the more than 40 woodcut illustrations, this printing includes a "new portrait" of Cruikshank, etched by F.W. Pailthorpe.
Binding: 19th-century half red morocco and marbled paper–covered sides, leather edges ruled in gilt double fillets, spine with raised bands, gilt-stamped title, and gilt-stamped floral compartment decorations. Signed binding: front free endpaper stamped by Root & Son.
With a List of Members of the Philobiblon Club in 1945 Thorp, Willard. The lost tradition of American letters. Philadelphia: Privately Printed for The Philobiblon Club, 1945. 8vo (24 cm; 9.5"). 26,  pp.
• Thorp (1899–1990) was a literary historian, an editor, and a critic who taught at Princeton University for more than 40 years. Here he seeks to resurrect interest in 19th-century American literature. He gave this paper as a talk to the Philobiblon Club in 1945, and the last three pages contain a list of members of the club at that time.
Reading Up on Printing-Related Patents United States Patent Office. [binding title] "Patents on copper printing rolls." [Washington]: 1876–1904. 8vo (28.8 cm, 11.35").  pp.; 36 plts.
• A lawyer's gathering of 25 important British and U.S. patents related to technological developments in printing, dating from 1876 through 1904. The patents here include "Engraving-Machine" and various specifications on the Pantograph (by John Hope, of the Hope & Sons textile printing company, whose "pantograph engraving machine . . . revolutionized the business of roll-engraving," Bicknell, History of the State of Rhode Island, 141), "Phototypography" (by Hannibal Goodwin, famed for later inventing roll film), and "Calico-Printing Machine" (by James Blair, the Scottish inventor of the aforementioned roller). Also represented is John Jacobson, holder of several photographic patents, and British engraver Gabriel Raphael Hugon.
The patent record copies are accompanied by 36 plates illustrating the various devices. A typed index is stitched in at the front; the title given above comes from this volume's spine label.
A full list of contents is available upon enquiry.
Provenance: Front and back pastedown each with rubber-stamp of A. Bell Malcolmson, attorney and counsellor at law; final page with pencilled annotation: "Bind for Mr. Malcolmson." Malcolmson is recorded as having been involved, in 1908, with a case regarding patent infringement of a method for duplicating typewritten work.
One of 50 Special Copies — Wood Engravings by Ruzicka Updike, Daniel Berkeley, & Rudolph Ruzicka. D.B.U. and R.R.: selected extracts from correspondence between Daniel Berkeley Updike and Rudolph Ruzicka, 1908–1941. New York: American Printing History Association, 1998. Small 4to (27.3 cm; 10.75"). vi, 181,  pp.
• One of 500 copies and no. 50 of 50 special copies signed by the designer Roderick Stinehour and bound by Judi Conant at Guildhall, VT, with the inclusion of three wood engravings by Rudolph Ruzicka printed by the Merrymount Press in addition to the many reproductions prepared for this volume. The correspondence was edited by Elizabeth French Lathem and Edward Connery Lathem, and the text and illustration together well exemplify the collaboration between two giants of the Book Arts during the first half of the 20th century.
The wood engravings are absolutely stunning.
Provenance: From the library of American collector Albert A. Howard (sans indicia).
This book also appears in the HISPANIC MISCELLANY — click here.
A Dutch Printer's Manual Set Forth & CONSIDERED Wardenaar, David. Zetten en drukken in de achttiende eeuw: David Wardenaar's Beschrijving der Boekdrukkunst (1801). Haarlem: Joh. Enschede en Zonen, 1982. 8vo. 610 pp., plts.
• Scholarly printing, with much apparatus, of the oldest known Dutch printer's manual — a manuscript dated 1801; with a good summary in English at the end, and a detailed index.


text:
State legislators in session on prisons construction, renovations
Published 9:35 am Wednesday, September 29, 2021
State legislators are working this week to get the new prisons bill on Gov. Kay Ivey's desk by Friday at the close of business.
Alabama lawmakers are meeting in a special session this week to consider and vote on a bill that would construct two new 4,000-bed prisons in Elmore and Escambia Counties, and the renovation of others.
The plan includes an initial commitment of about $1.2 billion.
State Sen. Greg Albritton said Tuesday as the Atmore Rotary Club's guest speaker that the state is going to have to borrow $785 million of the total, and spend some $153 million from the state General Fund. The other $400 million comes from federal dollars from a coronavirus recovery bill.
Albritton said most of the total is cash the state already has in the bank.
"We are able to appropriate $400 million of our money to use there for construction cost," he said.
Additionally, the plan includes the construction of a new women's prison to replace Tutwiler. Renovations to Donaldson Correctional Facility and Bessmer and Limestone Correctional Facilities are also in the plan.
Annual debt service on the bonds is estimated at $50 million a year for up to 30 years, which would put the total cost of the first phase of the plan at about $2 billion, according to an article on AL.com.
During a public hearing at the House on Tuesday, Mayor Jim Staff said the current prisons – Holman Correctional and Fountain Correctional – have been great for Atmore.
He said the new megaprisons will help not only Escambia County, but the surrounding counties.
Staff added that West Escambia Utilities, which serves the prisons now, is capable of serving the new megaprison.
"Our infrastructure is already there," he said. "We need it. We need it now."
At present, Albritton said there are some 900 inmates at Fountain, and around 300 at Holman.
Albritton said the new prison construction start will take place in early spring for Escambia County.
The new prison will be complete within 32 months in the county, he said, adding that the site will be near Holman.
Albritton said Fountain will be closed and may be refurbished.


Cyber attacks are continuing to increase globally in both number and scale, impacting all kinds of organizations in all kinds of industries. Every company is a potential target. Which means market researchers need to be as aware as anyone about the possible threats and take the necessary preventative action. This calls for being armed with the relevant knowledge and having a system which robustly protects survey data and, with that, company reputation.
A single "NotPetya" ransomware attack in June 2017 led to Nurofen maker Reckitt Benckiser taking an estimated EUR 110 million hit in revenue*.
Just think about what would happen if your company falls victim to malware which compromises your entire fieldwork operation, causing irretrievable loss of your fieldwork and respondent data. Not to mention the damage done to your client relationships.
We did, which is why NIPO's Nfield survey systems are designed to keep cyber attackers out. But optimal cyber security also depends on good human awareness of the threats, so people themselves do not become the vulnerable weak link. We therefore held a webinar about cyber security to educate our customers and help them protect their interests.
What are the probable external and internal cyber threats, and how could they damage your market research business?
What is the correlation between the different types of infrastructure (on premise, hosted or cloud) and data security vulnerability?
What is ISO 27001-2013 certification, and why is it so important and indispensable for your research business?
Is there such thing as a "checklist" to run business securely?
For more details on how NIPO ensures cyber security in its solutions and business, see the Nfield security factsheet.
If you would talk about whether your current solution meets the required security standards, then let us know. You can contact us at sales@nipo.com or call +31 20 5225 989.
Press "Enter" to display all search options.


Boards can be mounted together, vertically or horizontally with or without Meter kits. Extension Boxes are available for use as Cable Spreader units, fitted with 35mm DIN rail to mount various components, alternativelywitha 250A, 4 Pole Isolator to be used where 2 boards are combined.
Units are Powder Coated to RAL 7035 over pre-treated Heavy Gauge Steel with welded corners.
A wide selection of laser pre-cut cable entries which are easily removed without deforming the outer case.


text:
Lewis Hamilton managed to lead from start to the end, in a race that only eight drivers managed to finish. "Coming into a new season, turning over a new leaf, we really wanted to get off on the right foot" he said right after. The race was a catastrophe for Ferrari. Massa had an accident with Coulthard and retired during the 26th lap while Raikkonen suffered an engine failure, but still ranked 8th place and got 1 pt. Barrichello managed to get himself disqualified for exiting the pit lane while the red flag was waved.
Here are the official results of the 2008 Australian Grand Prix
1. Lewis Hamilton (Britain) McLaren 1:34:50.616
2. Nick Heidfeld (Germany) BMW Sauber +00:05.478
3. Nico Rosberg (Germany) Williams – Toyota 00:08.163
4. Fernando Alonso (Spain) Renault 00:17.181
5. Heikki Kovalainen (Finland) McLaren 00:18.014
6. Kazuki Nakajima (Japan) Williams – Toyota 1 lap
7r. Sebastien Bourdais (France) Toro Rosso – Ferrari 3 laps
8r. Kimi Raikkonen (Finland) Ferrari 5 laps
r. Robert Kubica (Poland) BMW Sauber 11 laps
r. Timo Glock (Germany) Toyota 15 laps
r. Takuma Sato (Japan) Super Aguri – Honda 26 laps
r. Nelsinho Piquet (Brazil) Renault 28 laps
r. Felipe Massa (Brazil) Ferrari 29 laps
r. David Coulthard (Britain) RedBull – Renault 33 laps
r. Jarno Trulli (Italy) Toyota 39 laps
r. Adrian Sutil (Germany) Force India – Ferrari 50 laps
r. Mark Webber (Australia) RedBull – Renault 56 laps
r. Jenson Button (Britain) Honda 57 laps
r. Anthony Davidson (Britain) Super Aguri – Honda 57 laps
r. Sebastian Vettel (Germany) Toro Rosso – Ferrari 58 laps
r. Giancarlo Fisichella (Italy) Force India – Ferrari 58 laps
DSQ Rubens Barrichello (Brazil) Honda +00:52.453
note: r = retired, dsq = disqualified


text:
Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic är ett ubåtsimulatorspel för Microsoft Windows utvecklat av Ubisoft Bucharest och utgivet av Ubisoft 2010. Det är det femte och senaste spelet i Silent Hunter-serien. Liksom i Silent Hunter II och Silent Hunter III, tar spelaren befäl över en tysk ubåt under andra världskriget, här i slaget om Atlanten.

Externa länkar

Datorspel 2010
Ubåtsspel
Windows-spel

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Making a Smoothie… seems simple right?
When it is done right – it will taste amazing and keep you full for hours.
You may start the day feeling unsatisfied and defeated.
Make sure you are getting all the optimal nutrients to help you start your day and keep you energized.
Once you learn the basic formula, have fun making your own creations. And for those ones you are proud of – share 'em with us on Instagram by tagging @activevegetarian.
Psst… scroll down to the bottom for a quick recipe to get you started.
Blend it all up – and enjoy!


Telematics is fast becoming the 'must have' technology for the fleet industry with research showing that almost nine out of 10 fleets, with more than 500 employees, have introduced telematics. One things for sure, it will become a fundamental part of our fleet management lives over the next few years.
So why the surgence in telematics within the logistics company?
Telematics can help tackle four of the biggest issues facing fleets: cost control; risk management; carbon reduction; and fleet productivity. Here's a breakdown of the benefits….
When a company installs GPS tracking devices in its vehicles, insurance companies give discounts on premiums. Therefore, by equipping all vehicles with GPS tracking devices, the companies tremendously reduce the insurance premiums that they pay every month.
Being able to know the location of vehicles at all times helps a transportation company to communicate more effectively with its drivers and customer. By seeing the location of all company vehicles on a map, the company can communicate to its customers the exact time the goods being transported to them will arrive.
The safety of both driver and goods on transit has been greatly improved by this. When drivers run into problems the company will know within a short time and can help solve or report the problem. This way, the drivers can get the help they need when they are in trouble. If there is a problem with a vehicle, another vehicle can be sent immediately to the exact location of the vehicle that has problems. This has helped to minimize delays that can eat up the profits of these companies.
Telematics create alerts based on mileage, engine use or time. This helps to develop an advanced vehicle maintenance schedule. Vehicles that are properly maintained and serviced will rarely develop mechanical problems that can delay the movement of goods.
GPS fleet tracking has enabled transportation companies to earn the trust of their customers. This is because a company that has GPS tracking systems on its vehicles is able to tell a customer the specific location of goods being transported at any given time. Also, a customer whose goods are being transported can know when his goods are going to reach the desired destination.
Although not the be all and end all, telematics stands out as being the single most cost effective answer to help deliver logistic goals whilst assisting with driver safety and is certainly something that is worth another look into.


ShopoLance.com lets the shoppers to choose the best available Girls Horseshoe. Our goal is to make your shopping experience easy and pleasant.
ShopoLance.com provides a fundamentally better way for consumers to shop and allows consumers to search for Girls Horseshoe across the leading stores at the same time.
Taken at a special Annuel Passholder showing of the Golden Horseshoe Revue at the Disneyland Resort.
ShopoLance.com is your premier resource for shopping & gift ideas for everyone. We compare prices of 100+ online stores and collect shopping details for every gift: shop for Girls Horseshoe gift ideas from clothes to electronics at ShopoLance.com.
© ShopoLance.com - 500 000+ Items For Special Prices: Girls Horseshoe Price Comparison, Coupons, Stores.


Adding a forwarding rule in WSP is a fairly quick and easy process.
You will then see a list of email accounts that has been created on your hosting package. Click on the one that you wish to add a forwarding rule to.
The forwarding option can be found at the bottom of the new page. Click on the save option once you have entered the address you wish to forward your emails to.
If you wish to have the email that was sent to mailbox 1 to be deleted after forwarding it to mailbox 2 then tick the "Delete Message on Forward" before saving.


text:
Sumberingin is een bestuurslaag in het regentschap Blitar van de provincie Oost-Java, Indonesië. Sumberingin telt 5183 inwoners (volkstelling 2010).

Plaats in Oost-Java


What personal information do we collect from people that use our online services?
When paying an invoice on our website, as appropriate you may be asked to enter your name, company name, email address, credit card information, invoice number and amount payable and /or any other details to help you with your online experience.
We collect information from you when you Pay an Invoice or enter information on our site.
Your personal information is contained behind secured networks and cannot be accessed by any staff. In addition, all sensitive/credit information you supply is encrypted via Secure Socket Layer (SSL) technology.
At Southern Habitat we pride ourselves on 100% customer satisfaction. If you have processed an incorrect payment, we will happily organise a refund or can apply the credit onto your account for next time.
Payments can take up to 2 days to process. A confirmation receipt will be emailed on submission of your payment.


We open our doors and welcome all Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts to utilize our facility for meetings and special activities.
Contact the church office if you'd like to meet here.
A nursery is provided on Sunday mornings free of charge for 6 week old infants to children age 4. Our nursery staff are trained in Safe Sanctuary and CPR.
Additionally, there are a minimum of two nursery staff on duty at any given time. Furthermore, streaming video of Worship Services are available in the Nursery should you choose to stay with your child.
Sunday School classes are offered at 9:00am for children age 4 through 5th grade. Additionally, sixth graders attend Confirmation Class during the Sunday School hour.
High School students pursuing a relationship with God.
On Sunday mornings from 9-10am for Sunday school.
for a relaxed evening of fun and games.
Aldersgate UMC follows the policy of Safe Sanctuary.


From Temuco: toward the south by the route #5 (Pan-American), there are 248 kilometers of freeway.
From Port Montt: toward the north by the route #5 (Pan-American), there are 108 kilometers of freeway.
From Villa La Angostura (Argentina): toward the west by the International Pass Cardenal Samoré, there are 167 kilometers by asphalted road.


text:
Q: Torsion points of an elliptic curve over number fields. Another proof of Silverman AEC theorem I am studying the following theorem from Silverman's AEC:

I am wondering whether there exists another proof that doesn't make use of formal groups and is still valid for a number field $K$. Could you suggest to me any references?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Mentalism ABA and Behavioral Analysis
Human behavior is a complex and unique thing to study. Think of all the types of emotional responses, all the complexities of human interaction, and try to boil it all down into a science. Sounds tough, doesn't it? Well, this is the task of ABA (applied behavior analysis) and behavioral analysis in general. And just how does this relate to mentalism?
Mentalism is a school of thought that believes human responses are not caused by outside factors and are instead due to factors inside the mind. Mentalism ABA and behavior analysis look at outside causes to explain human responses and actions. Mentalism relies on belief, while behaviorism is rooted in empirical evidence and observation.
There is a lot to understand regarding mentalism and how it affects the study of behavior analysis, and both fields of study are relevant to the general practice of psychology. This article will dig deep into what exactly mentalism is, whether it plays a role in ABA and behavioral analysis, and how these fields of study overlap and diverge.
What Does Mentalism Say About Human Behavior?
The human mind is incredibly expansive and quite hard to categorize. Thoughts, emotions, and consciousness are abstract things with no perfect definition, even though every person experiences them in some form.
Humans are uniquely capable of using the power of the mind to invent, imagine, and create, but the power of the mind can create problems as well. Mentalism prioritizes the study of the human mind.
Mentalists believe that the discipline of psychology should focus on an individual's thoughts, perceptions, and mental processes. The idea of cognition is central to mentalism, where the mind is the key driver of a person's identity and behavior.
Questions About the Existence of the Mind
The problem with mentalism's reliance on the mind as the central driver of human behavior is that, until recently, there have been very few ways to effectively quantify "the mind."
Locating and describing the mind in a physiological way has been a sticking point for psychologists since the existence of the mind was first theorized.
What Does Behaviorism Say About Human Behavior?
The fact that it is hard to prove foundational aspects of mentalism by using the scientific method gave rise to a different form of psychology called behaviorism, or behavioral analysis.
Behaviorism seeks to use finite data to better understand human behavior. ABA and behavioral analysis place a large value on evidence-based data to ground their conclusions and guide their work.
Behaviorism is built on the idea of cause and effect, a crucial tenet of the scientific method. Researchers study the relationship between a stimulus and its conditioned response within a person so that they can trace specific behaviors back to specific sources and hopefully change them.
Remember Pavlov? That is Behaviorism
The most notable example of this was Pavlov and his experiments on dogs, where he conditioned dogs to salivate every time they heard a bell ring because he continually fed them meat after ringing a bell.
In this instance, the dogs were taught a specific response (salivating) to a certain stimulus (the bell) through conditioning (feeding them meat). Pavlov was one of the quintessential behaviorists and was a key figure in the development of neuroscience and psychology.
Mentalism Vs. Behaviorism
A good model for thinking about these two schools of thought within psychology is to see mentalism as being concerned with subjectivity while behaviorism is concerned with objectivity.
Subjectivity is defined as something that doesn't have a finite basis in reality and instead only exists in the mind.
Objectivity is everything that exists in the physical world that is quantifiable, observable, and measurable.
Practitioners of mentalism see the value of psychology as being rooted in the subjective parts of our existence, in things like dreams, memories, and recurring thoughts.
While most people can relate to having dreams while asleep or having a memory of a deceased loved one, the physical process of locating these things in the brain has mystified researchers.
If you dissect a human arm, it is easy to objectively see certain tendons or ligaments and understand their role in making an arm move. But you can't dissect a brain and point to a dream or a memory.
What Came First – Behaviorism or Mentalism?
The history of psychology can be viewed as a pendulum that has swung back and forth between mentalism and behaviorism.
The study of psychology began in earnest in the 19th Century with thinkers like Edward Titchener and William James, who both believed that consciousness was the principal concern of psychology.
They were both within the school of mentalism because of their belief that the functions of the mind were the premier concern of psychology.
As science developed and technology improved into the 20th Century, a shift was made toward explaining behavior in a more objective way that was less reliant on introspective models and more predicated on measurable data.
The groundbreaking work of psychologists like John Watson and B.F Skinner vaulted behavioral analysis to the forefront of psychology and created longstanding therapeutic models like ABA that are still in use to this day.
It wasn't until very recently that mentalism made a significant comeback, thanks largely to advancements in brain mapping and other scientific tools that enabled a better understanding of how the mind operates within the brain.
The progress made in collecting objective data on the otherwise subjective entity of the mind has revolutionized psychology and brought mentalism back in vogue.
Which Side of Psychology Is Right?
The short answer is both and neither.
Both mentalism and behaviorism have been critical to our general understanding of the field of psychology, and neither side has to date offered a conclusive, holistic approach that doesn't somehow include aspects of the other.
Mentalism and behaviorism are not mutually exclusive, and often, one side will help inform the other.
Psychology: Study vs. Practice
The study of psychology is a bit different from the practice of psychology. It seems like a small difference, but it is crucial.
Researchers seek to understand and advance a general understanding of human behavior.
Therapists and analysts take these understandings and apply them to real-life subjects with the intent of bettering their lives.
The world of psychology is a fascinating science that has practical value in everyday life, with new studies and developments that enhance our understanding of the human mind, as well as therapeutic models and psychiatric medication improving the quality of life for many individuals.
Next, we're on to discuss one of those therapeutic models: Applied Behavior Analysis.
What Is Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)? There are several therapy types and modalities, many of which share similar features and approaches.
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is a framework created to better understand how an individual's behavior changes based on its environment by applying a set of principles through conditioning.
Characteristics of ABA
ABA was conceptualized in a groundbreaking paper written by Baer, Wolf, and Risley in 1968, in which they outlined seven general characteristics of the new psychological framework:
Conceptually Systematic
These principles were meant to legitimize ABA as a pragmatic course of treatment that could effectively and humanely change any individual who presented potentially harmful behavior. Practitioners of ABA build their treatment plans around these seven principles and are committed to improving and modifying the science of ABA as more research is done.
Focus and Practice of ABA
There are numerous facets of ABA that are built from these principles. Here is a general overview of what ABA focuses on and how it works in practice. ABA is:
Closely tied to learning and socializing. Once referred to as "behavior modification" or "behavioral engineering," ABA seeks to help individuals become better equipped to learn things and better engage in socially important behaviors with the help of a teacher or therapist.
Most commonly practiced with children and individuals on the Autism spectrum. The real benefits of ABA are perfect for individuals who otherwise have trouble acclimating to the necessary behaviors of academic and social life or who can't communicate in traditional ways.
Oriented toward objective and evidence based. Unlike other forms of analysis like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy which centers on conversational therapy built around subjective topics, ABA uses principles grounded in objective science that seek to produce specific responses.
Focused on altering specific behaviors. There is no attempt in ABA to promote a change in the individual's general emotional state but instead focus on changing very specific actions through measurement, treatment, and evaluation.
Centered on conditioning to achieve its goals. Recipients of ABA are told to perform a task and either immediately punished or rewarded based on how they perform. This is meant to encourage a change in the individual that is then reinforced through repetition.
Practiced by changing aspects of an individual's environment. The surrounding environment that produces certain behavior (antecedent) in an individual must be changed to produce new behavior. This is summed up in the ABA protocol: antecedent > behavior > consequence.
Behavior analysis is a more general term to describe types of therapy that are focused on modifying specific behaviors and not the more amorphous concern of mental health.
ABA is a type of therapy that is effective for treating very specific behaviors.
But that does not mean ABA won't improve the general mental health of the recipient. Remember how behaviorism and mentalism are not mutually exclusive? This is a perfect example.
Mentalism in ABA
At this point, you know that mentalism and ABA come from two conflicting viewpoints within psychology and have two distinct explanations of, and approaches to, human behavior.
Historically, mentalism and ABA have been two schools of thought at odds with one another, but in practice, it is hard to totally separate one from the other. This is because the mind and behavior are intimately tied.
ABA is staunch in its reliance on measurable data to ground its conclusions in reality, but there are certain aspects of human behavior that simply cannot be totally quantified through research.
Say you ask a child, "Why did you draw a house and color it blue?" and they respond, "Because I felt like it." Would it be possible to explain their behavior via behavioral analysis?
How Mentalism May Work with ABA and Behavioral Analysis
ABA and behavioral analysis are great for understanding direct actions, but what if the action or reasoning behind the action is abstract? This is where a more mentalistic approach may be necessary to understand the child's behavior.
The choice to use a mentalistic approach or a behavioral analysis approach depends on many things within the situation:
Is the individual on the Autism spectrum or have general difficulties learning or communicating?
Is the individual suffering from chronic depression, anxiety, eating disorders, or substance abuse issues?
Does the individual need help understanding basic social behavior?
Are there specific behavioral patterns and habits that may be harmful to an individual's safety?
Does the individual respond to tactile sensations or visual stimuli but not verbal cues?
Is the issue confined to the emotional state of an individual?
It is up to the discretion of a professional to develop a treatment plan for an individual, and it will most likely include a blend of behavioral and mentalistic treatment. But there are certain signs which may point to the efficacy of one treatment more than the other.
Does Mentalism Negatively Impact Behavioral Analysis?
While it is true that mentalism is routinely and effectively used as a therapeutic model, it should be noted that mentalism can be detrimental in some cases.
In cases of individuals on the Autism spectrum, there is a push to minimize the use of mentalism within treatment plans for several reasons:
The reliance on verbal explanations in mentalism can be less developed in neurodivergent people.
Mentalism can be seen as being exclusionary to individuals who are not comfortable in conversation, have trouble remembering basic things, or miss certain social cues.
Behavioral analysis requires clear, simple directions. Mentalism tends to complicate directions with open-ended questions and abstract ideas.
Mentalism usually lacks tactile or visual components in their therapy. These are common tools in ABA that help non-verbal individuals communicate effectively.
Mentalism is prone to creating feedback loops or circular thinking within situations.
This is because a problem behavior that is being targeted is often mistaken as the cause of the behavior itself, or as is stated in this paper on charting the effects of mentalism in the treatment of autistic children.
In short, the result of the analysis was this:
The use of mentalism can create confusing situations for children with Autism because they cannot discern their actions from the reasoning behind their actions.
This is harmful to the treatment process because it prevents both the recipients and the instructors from productively identifying a specific behavior, which is usually the first step to a behavior treatment.
Why ABA Works Better in Some Situations
ABA is a much more practical and intuitive treatment process for some people, especially those on the Autism spectrum.
This is because ABA uses reinforcement techniques like reward and punishment and is presented in a more understandable and meaningful way. ABA is almost synonymous with treatment plans for neurodivergent and autistic individuals.
A Note About ABA and Autism
While ABA is common in treating individuals on the Autism spectrum, there has been a push recently to redefine the use of this particular psychological method.
ABA does tend to center on "correcting" behavior or isolating "problem habits," which causes many to see the natural behavior of those on the Autism spectrum in a negative light. Many see this as unfair and unproductive to the treatment of these individuals.
This problem with the lack of inclusivity in the methodology of ABA is important to the study and is an ongoing development within the field. While it doesn't diminish the efficacy of the practice, it is an important note to keep in mind.
Behaviorism and mentalism are two schools of thought that coexist within psychology that, on the surface, seem theoretically conflicting. Behaviorism is concerned with the practical treatment of objective problems shown in people, while mentalism is more concerned with problems of the mind that do not exist finitely. Despite their differences, both mentalism and behaviorism are used in tandem to diagnose and treat a host of psychological disorders.
ABA is a treatment model born out of behavioral analysis that is especially effective in treating issues with socializing and learning functions. Mentalism can often be detrimental to some treatments that use ABA, as it can create confusion and misunderstanding in the treatment process. However, both ABA and mentalism are crucial and historically important tenets of the practice of psychology.