Just Finished Reading: War Against the Taliban – Why It All Went Wrong in Afghanistan by Sandy Gall (FP: 2012)

It is no great surprise – to those who actually know their history – that Afghanistan has the well-deserved label of the Graveyard of Empires. Alexander tried to occupy the country and failed as did the British (3 times) and the Russians before the Americans and British (again) plus other allies tried again after the attacks on 9/11. Honestly the British at least should have known better.

Whilst comparatively easy to attack and invade it’s almost impossible to hold Afghanistan for very long with anything like acceptable casualties (on either side). For one thing the terrain is unforgiving both on man and machine. The roads are often of questionable quality and always open to ambush. The Afghans themselves are a deeply tribal people with allegiances going back generations and vendettas going back just as far. Kill one of them and a hundred others will dedicate every waking minute to gaining revenge no matter the cost. After hundreds of years of combat against the major powers of each era the Afghans have developed a belief that they cannot ultimately be beaten before the price in blood of the invaders is too high to sustain.

But these are not the only reasons that the latest adventure in Afghanistan has been doomed to failure from the very start. A good place to start is the impossibility of nation building where nationhood does not exist. Despite the fact that many Afghans would identify as such their first and only true allegiance is to their family and their tribe. Welding a deeply tribal culture into a more modern nationalist one will take many more years than the West are prepared to take – even if such a thing is possible. Then there is the drug trade and the corruption it fosters in an area already known for its patronage and nepotism. Pouring billions of dollars into the country to build roads and institutions only made a bad situation worse. But by far the biggest problem – even bigger than cultural ignorance – is Pakistan. Despite the denials it eventually became clear that Taliban fighters were treating northern Pakistan as a safe haven and that not only were they allowed to do so but that Pakistani Intelligence armed and trained many of the Taliban that would eventually attack Allied troops in Afghanistan. The reasons are deep and often complex but the evidence for Pakistan’s collusion is overwhelming. What could, or will, be done about this fact is an even more difficult question to answer.

The author is both incredibly knowledgeable and informed about the region and has been their repeatedly since the early 1970’s and has developed relationships with some of the key players on all sides in that time. His access to members of Pakistan’s High Command, Allied commanders and members of Taliban units was astonishing. Such access not enabled him to bring out the strategic aspects of the conflict so that whatever was being discussed was always in the context of wider regional and global concerns. The diversion into Iraq was instrumental in siphoning off vast quantities of men and material at a vital time in the Afghan conflict at best delaying any final resolution and quite possibly derailing the whole campaign. Only much later – what the war was almost lost – did resources start to flow back into Afghanistan to stave off total defeat.

This is a must read for anyone trying to wrap their heads around what on earth is happening in this most tragic place. You get a real sense of what’s happening on the ground both from the grunts point of view as well as normal Afghan civilians who just want the killing to stop and the foreigners to leave. Highly recommended and much more to come.     

Just Finished Reading: Why I’m No Longer Talking (To White People) About Race by Reni Eddo-Lodge (FP: 2017)

This was a total impulse buy that has been sitting in a pile of books since the day I picked it up in my local franchise bookstore. I think it was being much talked about and I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I think that I knew I’d have issues with some of the directions it was coming from but do feel the need to not only expand my knowledge of subjects but also to challenge myself and see where my boundaries are.

Honestly the first 50-60 pages gave me a headache I was frowning so much. I found the authors style unfocused and chaotic as if she was having a stream of consciousness event and just wanted to get her thoughts down on paper without much in the way of editing or structure. Her examples, I thought, were poorly chosen and poorly presented. If this is the rest of the book, I thought, it was in real danger of being DNF’d. But at some point either the author improved her style or I simply got used to it – probably a bit of both. By the end of the book, although I still didn’t agree with her premise, at least I know where she was coming from and had a much greater appreciation of the basis for her argument. However, the more I started to understand her argument the more I started to see a fundamental flaw in it (at least from my point of view). Now I almost said from my ‘white privileged male’ point of view because that is an essential part of her argument that white people are privileged by the very fact that they’re born white. I have long rejected the idea of white privilege but now, thanks to this book, have a more nuanced understanding of what white privilege is – it’s the fact that white people in a white culture don’t have to contend with everyday racism, something which non-white people (a phrase the author doesn’t like) often do have to deal with. This idea of ‘privilege’ I can get my head around. The author did make an interesting distinction between prejudice and racism which, I think, should have pointed her towards a deeper understanding of the issue. She said that anyone can be prejudiced but that only white people can be racist because they have the power – however slight – to weaponise their prejudice to disadvantage anyone who doesn’t fit their racial ideals. This I think is the nub of the issue and something which the author should not have dismissed as easily as she did – that racism isn’t actually about race, it’s about power in the same was that sexism isn’t about gender, ultimately it too is about power.

If you understand the power relations in any group or culture you’ll know immediately who will be discriminated against and who will have a much easier journey through life. Historically in Europe and the US those in power have been and generally still are white men. It follows naturally that women and non-whites will be disadvantaged whenever those in power decide to do so. However, it doesn’t naturally follow that the white men in power will simply benefit other white men because of their skin colour or gender. The last thing those in power want to do is to share power with anyone else and they most certainly don’t want their power diluted in any way. A well-worn method of holding on to power is to divide your enemies and get them fighting amongst themselves whilst the powerful watch in wry amusement. This is how the few in power keep the vast numbers of the powerless from moving into their neighbourhood, going to their schools or marrying their daughters. Unfortunately the ‘divide and rule’ element of racism is another facet of the problem that the author either dismisses or minimises. Let me be very clear, I am neither saying that racism does not exist not am I minimising the impact on those in its crosshairs (sometimes literally). What I am saying is that racism (and sexism) are manifestations of something larger which the author almost, but not quite, recognises on several occasions. By half way through this book my headache had passed and I’d stopped frowning so much. At that point I had simply stopped rejecting her overall argument and had, instead, started to analyse it and find its faults. She almost had it right and I can see why she missed it (at least in my opinion).

It’s always interesting to be presented with something that you need to struggle with and which can challenge your world view. For me this book definitely achieved that end – after somewhat of a rocky start. The author eventually made some good arguments that I had to think through to see where they sat in relation to my existing beliefs about the world and, because of that, I believe that my world view has been improved. Definitely worth reading if only to see things from another perspective. 

Cartoon Time.

Self-driving delivery van ditches 'human controls'

From The BBC

6 February 2020

The first self-driving vehicle designed without basic human controls such as steering wheels, pedals or side view mirrors has been granted permission to test on US roads. Nuro, the company behind the design, makes autonomous delivery vans. The vehicle is Nuro's second generation of its vehicles, which it is calling R2 and will be tested in Houston, Texas. This is the first exemption to a rule requiring vehicles to have controls for human operators. Most of the rules for testing vehicles require features that allow a driver to safely take control of them. But in a statement, the US transport secretary Elaine Chao said given that the vehicle's top speed is capped at 25mph, these requirements "no longer make sense". The Department of Transportation (DoT) will also be enforcing greater oversight of the testing. It will require Nuro to report information about the operation of the R2 and reach out to the communities where the vehicle will be tested. In a blog post, Nuro's co-founder Dave Ferguson said the decision was a "milestone for the industry". "Moving forward, we must modernize the existing regulations that never envisioned a vehicle without a driver or occupants, and everyone in the industry must work to ensure self-driving technology is tested and deployed in the safest possible vehicles," he wrote. General Motors has also requested an exemption to test its self-driving Chevy Bolt. DoT has not yet announced its decision for the firm's request. The Bolt does however have a higher top speed than Nuro's R2 vehicle.

Nuro's vehicles are designed to operate without a driver or passengers in them. In its R2 design, the company removed the side view mirrors and windscreens. It will also keep the rear view camera running at all times. This is not permitted without an exemption from the DoT, as the camera could distract human drivers. The vehicle has an egg-shaped frame that is smaller than most cars in the US. It also has two temperature-controlled compartments for deliveries. Doors raise up to reveal the items once a code has been entered by the recipient. The R2 uses radar, thermal imaging and 360-degree cameras to direct its movement. Nuro has announced the R2 will deliver pizza for Domino's Pizza, groceries from supermarket chain Kroger and goods for Walmart, during its Huston trial. During the testing of its initial R1 design, the firm made deliveries for Kroger in Scottsdale, Arizona. Nuro was founded by two former Google engineers and it has funding from Japanese firm Softbank.

[Well, if any of your kid’s dream of becoming delivery drivers I think you need to have ‘the talk’ with them before they find their long term aspirations shattered by a sliver of silicon. Inevitable I guess though. Once they iron out the wrinkles of autonomous vehicles they’ll be everywhere. What a strange world we are building……]

Just Finished Reading: Ready Player One by Ernest Cline (FP: 2011)

OK, this is going to be a somewhat different review so bear with me. I saw the trailer for the movie of Ready Player One (RPO) and couldn’t help being interested. As a Gamer since around 1974 I’ve always been disappointed in how the Game/Virtual world was portrayed on screen. The Spielberg movie delivered this IN SPADES so I was more than happy with the on-line visuals. The off-line IRL scenes I was less happy with but I’ll discuss all of that when I finally get around to reviewing the movie.

Now I’ve seen RPO the Movie about 4-5 times now and, because of its Easter Egg nature am always picking up on new things. Inevitably the movie was, for me, the story despite the fact that I was holding the book in my hand. This was the first problem I had. Although I know, and have tried the educate others on the fact, that movies and books exist in very different media and can’t be reasonably or easily compared with each other the movie version in my head kept clashing with the written version in my hand and proved to be a serious impediment to me getting involved with the book. The problem was that I was being constantly drawn out of the narrative by thoughts of “well THAT’S different from the Movie!” over and over again. I mean, apart from the characters, some set pieces and the overall structure the two media are very different indeed. SPOILERS AHEAD: The first thing that jarred was the fact that, in the book, Wade was in High School. Not only of High School age but actually IN High School – indeed this fact was important to the plot. A huge difference I thought was that the whole novel was pretty much exclusively from Wade’s point of view. Although the other members of the ‘High Five’ took part in Halliday’s competition (to discover the hidden Easter Egg and take control of the company that ran the MASSIVE game called Oasis) they did so mostly separately with very little interaction with or help from the others. There was no ‘resistance’ and Art3mis most definitely wasn’t its leader. IOI, the competing software company, was the bad guy but turned out to be even more ruthless in the book than in the film where, to be honest, they were kind of incompetent and comical rather than frightening.

The two things that shocked me in the book – as opposed to the movie which in many respects was a toned down version of Cline’s vision – where the details about HOW Wade’s parents died. We only learnt that they had died in the movie (during the early period of chaos after an environmental and economic collapse) without any detail. The detail provided in the book would have made the movie both darker and certainly less child friendly. The world Cline created was MUCH darker than the typical Spielberg trope. Cline’s world is unforgiving, dangerous and pretty much without hope – if you’re stuck at the bottom of the heap that is. There are glimpse of the rich or more readily those who are ‘getting by’ but life is precarious at best for the majority of people. But I did think from time to time that although the author created this dark backdrop he didn’t quite know what to do with it. He was certainly no William Gibson in this regard. The second thing that really surprised me was that one of the High Five DIED in the real world so never made it to the final gate (so no completely soppy happy ending in the book – although there is a happy ending of sorts).

Overall the narrative arc is the same – contest, challenges, keys, IOI opposition and so on. The bombing of the ‘Stacks’ happens as does the shoot out in the nightclub but both are significantly different in the movie. Ogden Morris is far more central in the book but he doesn’t play the robotic butler. There’s no cool car chases or Shining scene (one of my favourite bits of the movie) and the book challenges are, to be honest, moderately naff and just wouldn’t have translated well to the large screen. I could go on with comparisons but I won’t. Needless to say except for the core idea, the names of the protagonists and a few set-pieces the movie and the book are worlds apart. But that’s not always a bad thing by any stretch. It was actually interesting reading the book after the film to see where the ideas came from. I could understand why Spielberg ran with some ideas and dropped others. I could see why he amped up the romance between Wade and Art3mis as well as the friendship between the members of the High Five (who actually lived all across the globe and not in the same city) and why he personified IOI more in the shape of Sorrento. RPO certainly wasn’t a bad book. I can see why it became so popular. I loved the endless references to pop culture and especially gaming culture throughout and smiled/laughed more than once as evoked memories from the 70’s and 80’s popped and fizzed in my head. This is a fun read for anyone who lived through that time and who had spent far too many hours and far too many coins in arcades playing the latest game until you could beat them completely on autopilot. Recommended to all Geeks out there – expect you’ve probably already read it by now.   

Cartoon Time.

Just not TOO much.

OK…… Brexit.

So, finally after about 4 months shy of 4 years since The Vote at 23:00 on Friday 31st Jan 2020 we officially left the European Union. Honestly people near me set off fireworks. Yes, honestly. They CELEBRATED Brexit like it was a positive thing.

Of course you’ll hear people saying that “Hey, you Remainers said everything would crash and burn and look…. Nothing has changed”. Which is exactly the point. Nothing HAS changed. What happened on Friday was that we’ve agreed our Leave Agreement. So we’re ‘out’ but at least until 31st December 2020 we still run everything – in relation to the EU anyway – under EU rules. Except that we no longer have any representation on any EU body, committee or anything else. Which essentially means that decisions made by the EU and which might affect us will happen with zero input from us. This will, quite naturally, cause friction in the run up to finalising our future trading relationship with the EU (coincidentally our largest present trading partner by far).

As to a trade deal, the EU have already said that getting one through by Christmas is impossible. Boris is looking to something like the recent Canada deal not harping on the fact that the trade deal with Canada took 7 years and almost failed at the 11th hour. Even if you take the 4 years on the Withdrawal negotiations into account (which we shouldn’t) that’s still another 3 years. We have until October to get a deal ready to put before the EU and if a single country says Non – that’s it. Of course Boris says that WTO rules will be fine and that we’ll prosper no matter what but I can say with equal assurance that next Thursday it’ll be raining champagne between the hours of 4 and 6 in the evening – get those glasses ready, it’ll be great!

For the time being at least everything we keep on keeping on until something somewhere hits a bump. Presumably we now have more ‘control’ over certain things and we’ll start exercising that control to make a point that we have it back. How the EU will react to that if we go too far is anyone’s guess. They’ve already mentioned penalties if we don’t ‘behave’. I imagine also that companies dependent on EU trade will start putting their contingency plans into motion. I’m guessing that over the next few months companies that haven’t already started moving certain of their business elements either onto the Continent or to Southern Ireland will do so. I’m guessing also that countries who use us as a gateway to Europe will start looking elsewhere too – probably again to Southern Ireland.

How exactly things will pan out – I have no real idea. Generally things aren’t as bad or as good as people predict. I certainly hope that they’re not half as bad as some people think they’ll be (including me!). We’ll have to take it one day at a time and see where we end up. Globally we do seem to be going through a particularly turbulent time now and it’s looking like that turbulence will be around for a few more years (probably a decade at least) before things can settle down again. Personally I’m not optimistic. But a train wreck can only really be interesting to watch if you’re not actually sitting in a 2nd Class carriage on the train in question. 

Cartoon Time.

MEPs vote for universal charger for smartphones

From The BBC

1st February 2020

Members of the European Parliament have voted for a single universal charging solution for small portable devices, which Apple had cautioned against. The resolution passed with 582 votes in favour to 40 against. MEPs will now urge the European Commission (EC) to adopt the new rules. The MEPs want to make it possible for consumers to use a single charger for all smartphone and tablet models. But the devices themselves could still use different ports. The idea behind the move is to "decouple" the sale of a charger from that of a new mobile device, and instead encourage consumers to re-use those they already own.

At present, Apple packages most of its iPhones with charging plugs that have a USB-A port for their Lightning cables. By contrast, some Android phones - such as Google's Pixel 4 - come with a wall charger that features a smaller USB-C port, for use with a corresponding USB-C cable. Apple does sell a cable that has a USB-C connector at one end and a Lightning one at the other, so in theory could easily switch its adapters to the new technology. In fact, its top-end smartphone - the iPhone 11 Pro Max - comes bundled with a USB-C power adapter.

The move would, however, mean that most existing Lightning cables - and indeed other types of cable with USB-A connections - would require an adapter to work with the new chargers. It could also prevent companies having the freedom to move to a follow-up type of port in the future when the next standard emerges. European politicians have been campaigning for a common standard for the past decade, with the EC estimating that obsolete cables generate more than 51,000 tonnes of waste per year. They acknowledged, however, that the situation is at least better than in the past, when some proprietary charging cables came hard-wired to their plug, meaning the adapter had no use beyond the device it came with. "In 2009, there were more than 30 charging solutions, while today there are three charger types," a press release from the European Parliament said. But Apple has previously said: "We want to ensure that any new legislation will not result in the shipment of any unnecessary cables or external adaptors with every device, or render obsolete the devices and accessories used by many millions of Europeans and hundreds of millions of Apple customers worldwide." Ben Wood, an analyst with research firm CCS Insight, said: "Given the current trend towards sustainability and a reduction in e-waste, this seems like a sensible move. However, the EU needs to be careful not to stifle innovation by mandating a certain technology indefinitely." With an eye to the future, MEPs have also said they want the EC to ensure that different wireless chargers are interoperable with different mobile devices.

[Good. Personally I have one personal mobile phone and two work mobile phones – so three different chargers. After this rule comes in there will be no more looking for a particular type of charger for a particular make and model of a particular phone. It’s about time there was some sort of standardisation.]

Love is in The Air (Tonight?)

Welcome to February and, as tradition dictates, Love & Relationship Month here @ SaLT. Enjoy the loving feeling as we look forward to Spring and all that entails...........

Just Finished Reading: To Engineer is Human – The Role of Failure in Successful Design by Henry Petroski (FP: 1982)

In another Life, in another Universe I might have been a Civil Engineer. I love the idea of building things like bridges and skyscrapers, dams and tunnels. So when Amazon said I might like this book I took its advice. I was not disappointed.

The narrative starts with a seemingly simple question. After the collapse of an internal skywalk a neighbour asked the author “After all of these years you guys still don’t know how to build a bridge? What’s up with that?” Needless to say that the answer wasn’t something that could be conveyed in a few pithy sentences – hence the need for a whole book. There are several problems with building things – like a bridge for example. In some cases nothing like the particular bridge in question has ever been built before. Maybe the span is larger than ever been attempted or the materials are new or have never been tried in that particular combination. Maybe the expected traffic levels turn out to be half of the actual levels, maybe the manufacturer of particularly sensitive parts bid low to undercut the opposition and used inferior materials to cut costs. Maybe the salt content of the local water wasn’t tested or changed unexpectedly over time due to other building works unknown at the time because they post-dated the bridge being built. Thousands of these questions need to be taken into account and some of them cannot be easily quantified. No two structures are identical nor are two locations or conditions during the build process or in the years, decades or centuries that the structure stands for. Bridges that last far beyond their expected lifespan may be seen as over-engineered overly cautious structures that could be made cheaper, faster and more elegant if less materials or the latest materials are used until, at some point, the bridge collapses and the subsequent investigation shows where a pleasing curve and an elegant span coincides with inadequate bracing and a lack of alternate load paths.

Although much of this excellent brief volume looks at bridges the author evaluates other engineering failures to make his point. I was particularly taken by his detailed discussion of the Comet disasters in the 1950’s where the premier aircraft of its day inexplicably crashed after exploding mid-air before it was discovered that cracks from the then unknown metal fatigue caused explosive decompression long before it was expected to be a problem. Only rigorous testing in giant water tanks revealed the problem before anyone else died. Likewise the discussion of the success of the Crystal Palace created from cast iron prefabricated parts for the Great Exhibition in 1851 was, pardon the pun, riveting. You could feel the authors admiration for the awesome success of what was, up till that point, essentially an amateur engineer. A particular amusing section was on the demise of the slide rule (I just remember them as they’d just gone out of fashion when I started doing Maths seriously) and the problematic use of CAD (Computer Aided Design) software – something I’m very familiar with as I’ve been regularly using it for the last 15 years - as an automated way of making mistakes with confidence. Older engineers can look at the derived figures and sense that they don’t ‘feel’ right whereas younger engineers who grew up with CAD would simply trust it too much. This is exactly what some of my much later technology reading made such a play of – trusting the screen rather than the reality of things.
          
Overall this was a delightful, fascinating and highly informative book. I’m certainly looking at structures in a different way and am paying particular attention to any cracks I see or any unexpected movement I feel! Fortunately the author has produced a number of other books on the subject and I’ll definitely be picking them up. Much more on the subject to come.

Cartoon Time.

I wonder how many people get lost here....?

My Favourite TV Shows: Fringe (Series 1)

I first came across Fringe ages ago whilst randomly channel hopping during the adverts. I watched it for a minute or so and it looked kind of interesting but then I went back to whatever I was already viewing but kept it in mind for later. YEARS later I found a cheap (actually I think under-priced) box set of the whole show and snapped it up. I then found myself binge watching the whole thing over the next few months.

At first viewing Fringe has a whole X-Files vibe and is initially easy to dismiss as an X-Files clone. But it quickly becomes something far more (and dare I say far better) than that. There are naturally similarities. For one the organisation doing all the investigation is the FBI – or the Fringe Division of the FBI (hence the title). We are introduced to Fringe only obliquely. There’s an FBI investigation into illegal chemical/bio weapons technology transfer involving Special Agents Olivia Dunham (played by Anna Torv) & her partner/lover John Scott (played by Mark Valley). During a chase sequence Scott is sprayed with chemicals and will die without very special attention. The only person who can help is Dr Walter Bishop (played by John Noble). The problem is that he’s a long term patient in a mental hospital and the only person who he can be signed out to is his son peter (played by Joshua Jackson – yes, him) who’s running scams in Iraq. Olivia persuades her boss to let her pick Peter up and bring him back to the US to save her partner – who unfortunately dies later after he apparently betrays her and his country (long story). Needless to say that’s not the end of it by a long shot. Because of her work in tracking down illegal weapons transfers Dunham is let in on what’s really going on along with a chance of joining the Fringe Division. She can hardly refuse after learning about ‘The Pattern’.

The Patter is a number of linked incidents that have occurred across the globe usually written off to the public as either accidents or random acts of terror. They are neither. They are in fact a co-ordinated attack against a number of nations by an unknown adversary for reasons unknown. Normally using cutting edge bio-tech or other technologically advanced weaponry the FBI is struggling to contain things. Seemingly at the heart of things – either directly or tangentially – is a megacorp known as Massive Dynamic (because why not!) who’s head and founder is William Bell who was friends with….. Walter Bishop. Then things start getting complicated……

You can see already that this is no simple X-Files knock-off. Some of the episodes certainly have that feel to it but there is a strong overall narrative that carries everything forward. Watching a single episode might give you the impression of a ‘monster of the week’ show but when you watch a whole series – or even better all five – you can see how it all hangs together, and it does! Things are shown or mentioned in one episode that might show up 2, 3, or 10 episodes later to make you go: So THAT’S what that meant. It ALL makes sense now! And it wasn’t just once or twice that happened either. As the first series progresses we’re introduced to the main characters are see some of their backstories but interesting there are elements that even the characters themselves are unaware of. Neither Walter, his son Peter or even Olivia know everything about their pasts (another multi-series LONG story) which, of course makes things even more interesting by far as you try to figure out what things mean, how things you already know fits in and begin to wonder if you really know what you think you know to be true. But at the same time – looking back – it all makes perfect sense! That alone makes the series a delight to watch – trying to figure things out in almost the same timescale as the characters themselves. Sometimes we’re privy to information they don’t have but at other times we’re as shocked as they are by the revelations.

I don’t really want to give too much away for those who have yet to see this show. It’s full of tech-speak and crazy ‘theoretical’ ideas, indeed the verbal pause followed by the word ‘theoretically’ is a kind of trade mark throwaway line from Dr Bishop. All of the main cast and supporting cast are excellent. I actually didn’t find myself disliking anyone over 5 series which is pretty amazing. I honestly fell in love with Olivia Dunham (more than once…..) as she’s a brilliant character with layers even she didn’t know about until she read it in the script. The overall plot reveals itself little by little as the series moves forward and you can see element build on element into a final believable (mostly) compete jigsaw puzzle. But be warned – don’t get too comfortable with things. Each series is quite different in scope, narrative and focus. Each is in effect a single perspective on a much larger issue that, again, unfolds on a much broader canvas and much longer timescale. It’s all very, very clever. Oh, one other thing – the faint of heart should note that there are regular, if rather restrained for TV, ‘body horror’ elements to the series with autopsies, mutilated corpses (it’s a monster type series after all!) and other yuck factor elements throughout all 5 series. So if you can’t stand the sight of blood this might not be the show for you. But if you’re into weird science based mystery cop shows this is definitely one to watch.   

Cartoon Time.

Who's afraid.....

Twitter demands AI company stops 'collecting faces'

From The BBC

23 January 2020

Twitter has demanded an AI company stop taking images from its website. Clearview has already amassed more than three billion photographs from sites including Facebook and Twitter. They are used by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security and more than 600 other law-enforcement agencies around the world to identify suspects. In a cease-and-desist letter sent on Tuesday, Twitter said its policies had been violated and requested the deletion of any collected data.

Twitter's developer agreement policy says: "Information derived from Twitter content may not be used by, or knowingly displayed, distributed, or otherwise made available to any public-sector entity for surveillance purposes." According to the New York Times, the Clearview app includes programming that could pair the images with augmented-reality glasses that would allow users to identify the names and addresses of anyone they saw. Clearview has not yet responded to a request for comment.

US senator Ron Wyden said on Twitter Clearview's activities were "extremely troubling". "Americans have a right to know whether their personal photos are secretly being sucked into a private facial-recognition database," he said. "Every day, we witness a growing need for strong federal laws to protect privacy." Senator Edward J Markey also shared his concerns, in a letter sent to the company on Wednesday, suggesting its technology could "facilitate dangerous behaviours and effectively destroy individuals' ability to go about their lives anonymously". It follows suggestions the European Commission is considering a five-year ban on the use of facial recognition in public areas. Regulators want time to work out how to prevent the technology being abused. Concerns over the use of facial-recognition technology have grown recently, even in China, where the government continues to embrace its uses. Some 74% of Chinese respondents in a recent survey by the Beijing research institute said they wanted the option to be able to use traditional ID methods over the tech to verify their identity.

[Yet another reason not to be on Social Media… Or have your photograph taken….. Ever.]

Man's Best Friend....!