IPVM Testifies at Uyghur Tribunal
By IPVM Team, Published Sep 14, 2021, 10:08am EDTIPVM provided expert testimony to the Uyghur Tribunal in London on September 12, outlining how PRC China authorities use various surveillance tools to oppress and control the ethnic minority group in China. The video clip below shows the introduction:
Conor Healy, IPVM's government director, provided an expert report and testimony to the panel, discussing the role of video surveillance in oppressing the PRC's Uyghur population. Healy also testified about how new technology such as "emotion detection" cameras and devices like smart Tiger Chairs are developed and used by the PRC to persecute Uyghurs and other minorities.
The Uygur Tribunal questioned IPVM for ~50 minutes after IPVM's 10-minute presentation ended, as this clip shows:
The entire 1-hour IPVM testimony and questioning by the Tribunal may be watched below:
Background
The Uyghur Tribunal is an independent, UK-based body chaired by a British attorney Geoffrey Nice, who served as the lead prosecutor in the 2002-2006 war crimes trial of Slobodon Milosevic. The goal of the panel is to "reach an impartial and considered judgment on whether international crimes are proved to have been committed by the PRC".
The tribunal also includes prominent international human rights attorneys such as Hamid Sabi. As counsel to the Iran Tribunal, Sabi investigated mass killings of political prisoners by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 1980s.
Testimony
The tribunal has featured eyewitness testimony from ethnic Uyghurs and Kazakhs previously detained in 'reeducation camps' in Xinjiang, former PRC policeman Wang Leizhan, and former British diplomat and China expert Charles Parton.
China experts, such as Professor James Millward, Professor John Packer, Dr. Darren Byler, Dr. Rian Thum, Dr. David Tobin, Dr. Adrianok Zenz, and Jessica Batke, provided testimony. Like IPVM, this testimony centered on an ongoing pattern of human rights abuses against minority groups in Xinjiang.
Outcome
As the Tribunal explains itself, it aims to reach a judgment on whether the PRC has committed international crimes as the PRC objects to the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction:
If it were realistically possible to bring the PRC to any formal international court – in particular to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – there would be no need for the establishment of a people’s tribunal.
There is no such possibility not least because China/the PRC, although a signatory to and ratifier of the Genocide Convention, has entered a reservation against ICJ jurisdiction. There is no known route to any other court that can deal with the issues before the tribunal.
The Uyghur Tribunal, which has no powers of sanction or enforcement, will confine itself to reviewing evidence in order to reach an impartial and considered judgment on whether international crimes are proved to have been committed by the PRC.
It will be for States, international institutions, commercial companies, art, medical and educational establishments and individuals to determine how to apply the Tribunal’s Judgment, whatever it may be, in their dealings with the PRC. This could include, but is not limited to, trade and other sanctions including against individuals, proscribing the sale of technologies, surveillance and medical equipment and the declaration of ineligibility for visas
The panel is currently holding its second set of hearings, following proceedings in June, and is expected to issue its judgment in December 2021.
IPVM shall continue to report on the progress and judgment of the Uyghur Tribunal.
Comments (30)
Great job Conor. I hope that having these types of interactions with governments can help educate the masses on how technology is wrapped around their daily lives and how data can be used against them.
IPVMU Certified | 09/14/21 10:29am
I am so proud to be a member of this community.
C. Healy shows his diplomatic talent in exchange at 49:42:
“Do you think they would ever be able to detect your actual DNA?”
“Using a camera ?!?” (Out of courtesy pretends to consider for a moment) “I don’t see how”… :)
That takes a VERY special lens
It can detect coronavirus too
I think that's why he knocked over the water just a few minutes later.
| 09/17/21 04:46pm
A camera, no. A specially calibrated mass spectrometer from the distant future that's attached to the camera... maybe.
09/15/21 08:58am
I think that Conor was really, really good... though the panelists weren't exactly throwing any split-fingered fastballs low and away at him.
I specifically liked his answer to the most important question (imo) - which was immediately after the DNA question referenced above: (50:01 mark)
Dame Professor Parveen Kumar:
"How can one use this technology (Uyghur face detection) in a good way?"
Conor:
"...I've spent some time thinking about this, and I can not come up with a single application of this technology that has a positive outcome for... anyone."
Perhaps the flood of Chinese body temp cameras that don't work in the USA was actually an attack vector by the PRC to spread the virus they released.
The tribunal will have zero effect on the PRC and their treatment of that ethnicity or any others. More bs talk. Then the participants ask silly questions such as the one about a camera that can detect DNA. Really? More useless politics. None the less, conor, nice job participating in the puppet show.
| 09/15/21 02:38am
I almost never use disagree - but I did this time because I disagree with your denigration of the value of Conor's participation in this UK public forum, representing IPVM.
we all know that politicians (of most any country) have no real understanding of video surveillance technology... just as they have little understanding of farm machinery technology that their constituents might care about.
that lack of understanding on their part doesn't diminish Conor's contribution representing IPVM - and instead, I think his answers to their questions actually helped them understand why Uyghur detection analytics are bad. m'kay?
M'kay; wasn't diminishing Conor, himself. I'm sure he did very well at participating in a paper tiger tribunal. I suppose we will have to wait and see what effect, if any, this has on the PRC policy, as we see it practiced today. My guess is they will continue "business as usual". Let's see if I'm proven wrong. M'kay....
| 09/15/21 03:00am
the m'kay thing is a South Park reference -
it was not meant to sound like it sounds if you don't know the reference. for that I apologize.
like you, I am suspect about the actual impact of such a tribunal... but what is the alternative? give up?
I understand the "m'kay" reference. And it did present as demeaning, based on Trey's use of it in the show and with the character. However, I'm the last person that should say anything about presenting as demeaning; given my history here but I digress. I would say " no don't give up if it matters to you". I suppose, it also doesn't matter to me enough, either; there are many other things to expend the energy on then this as I see it. This methodology, also, in my opinion, and experience, will not work. We will find out soon enough.
| 09/14/21 11:29pm
my response was based on my own perception that you indirectly attacked complimented Conor for his participation in 'the puppet show'
you see it differently and that's cool.
Then the participants ask silly questions such as the one about a camera that can detect DNA. Really?
Really. They just have to kill you first :)
LOL When you cannot beat Hikhua in the business, here we have IPVM.
I subscribed to IPVM for industrial trends but all I have seen is PIVM putting tons of effort to attack Hikhua or any manufacture they don't like. This is definitely ridiculous especially in the USA, a claimed to be a "free market" for global business.
The TRUE threat from Hikhua is never cybersecurity or Xinjiang conspiracy (I believe most Xingjiang experts from IPVM have never been to Xingjiang or China), but Hikhua's increasing market shares in the US market. The market needs good products with affordable prices and a strong supply chain and Hikhua is capable to do it and now you guys are jealous? When you start mix politics and business and kick off the good product, it is the end-users, the installers, the integrators, and the entire industry get hurt and paid for it. I dont blame IPVM but IPVM is more like to stir the pot.
