Wednesday, July 1, 2020

World's largest graveyard of Dinosaurs found in South Africa

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Nikhita Gautam

Article Title

World's largest graveyard of Dinosaurs found in South Africa

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 1, 2020

URL

‘African dinosaurs’ exhibit at the Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town

‘African dinosaurs’ exhibit at the Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town | Source: Bruce Anderson via Wikimedia

In a village in the eastern cape of South Africa lies one of the most significant dinosaur sites ever found in the world. The site was discovered when a shepherd, Dumangwe Thyobeka found a large bone on his way to his great-grandparents’ graves, in 2015. He then took the bones to a local dinosaur enthusiast, James Rhalene. Commenting on this discovery " Mr. Rhalene said, "Growing up we were told dinosaurs were a myth, I thought they were only tales our grandparents would tell around the fire at story time", and It wasn't until reading some books that I started to believe they may be real. I've been looking into the existence of dinosaurs since 1982. He added, "You can imagine my excitement at being part of this and discovering them in my own backyard. I am so proud. Books will be written about our small village; the world will come to know of us through this discovery.”

These bones are more than 200 million years old, of around the end of the Triassic era and the beginning of the Jurassic one. When the village elder, Sginyane Ralane came to know about the discovery, he reached out to universities in South Africa for looking into it. The news eventually reached Prof. Jonah Choiniere from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, and in 2018 Jonah and his colleagues started excavating the site. “It has been one of those places where you sometimes find yourself literally tripping over a dinosaur bone. There are very few other sites I've had the chance to work where we have this richness of fossils.” says Prof Paul Barett, a dinosaur expert at The Natural History Museum, UK, after he joined the team.

A reason why this area is abundant in fossils, Natural History Museum explains, is because of the ancient river systems in the area. The area is arid for most of the year now, and the rivers flow only seasonally. However, in the ancient times, there were vast river systems flowing year-round in the region, with wide, shallow rivers which would consequently form a layer of rock 210 million years old which is up to 500 meters thick in some regions. These rivers supported diverse wildlife, including ancestors of crocodiles, possibly those of turtles and mammals and fish, amphibians and reptile-like animals. The existence of such large rivers meant that dead animals nearby would be buried in sediment before they decomposed.  

This discovery is scientifically important for a number of reasons; the era from which these bones are found is a boundary in which a mass extinction occurred. Prof. Jonah is trying to understand how the animals from before that extinction survived and how they flourished after. In the Triassic era, there were multiple dominating animals, like the crocodiles, big mammal-like animals and dinosaurs. In the Jurassic era, however, the dinosaurs are clearly dominating. Why this happened is unclear, and the rocks and fossils from this site might help with that. There were also other animals along with dinosaurs in this site which make it noteworthy. Of the animals found, there were rauisuchians, which relate to modern-day crocodiles, and were dominant on land during the Triassic. The team also found cyclodonts and dicyclodonts, where the cyclodonts are the early ancestors to all mammals, and dicyclodonts are an even earlier branch of the mammalian family tree.

All of these have a significant impact on the community too; the team signed a memorandum of understanding with the local government with huge. After the signing, local officials visited the site at Qhemega. The team has been trying to use the heavy machinery they had brought for moving fossils for improving access in and to the village. They are also developing a curriculum in high schools to include topics about fossil sites and to add geography to the curriculum, to train the younger generation about the mapping used in excavation and in many other scientific fields especially relevant in the mineral-resource rich South Africa.

So far, this site has only provided benefits for everyone involved; new discoveries and confirming data for the scientific community, and economic access, increased opportunities and a matter for pride for the local community.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:22 PM

Automated Facial Recognition System of India and its Implications

On 28th of June 2019, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) opened bids and invited Turnkey Solution providers to implement a centralized Automated Facial Recognition System, or AFRS, in India. As the name suggests, AFRS is a facial recognition system which was proposed by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, geared towards modernizing the police force and to identify and track criminals using Facial Recognition Technology, or FRT.

The aforementioned technology uses databases of photos collected from criminal records, CCTV cameras, newspapers and media, driver’s license and government identities to collect facial data of people. FRT then identifies the people and uses their biometrics to map facial features and geometry of the face. The software then creates a “facial signature” based on the information collected. A mathematical formula is associated with each facial signature and it is subsequently compared to a database of known faces.

This article explores the implications of implementing Automated Facial Recognition technology in India.

Facial recognition software has become widely popular in the past decade. Several countries have been trying to establish efficient Facial Recognition systems for tackling crime and assembling an efficient criminal tracking system. Although there are a few potential benefits of using the technology, those benefits seem to be insignificant when compared to the several concerns about privacy and safety of people that the technology poses.

Images of every person captured by CCTV cameras and other sources will be regarded as images of potential criminals and will be matched against the Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and Systems database (CCTNS) by the FRT. This implies that all of us will be treated as potential criminals when we walk past a CCTV camera. As a consequence, the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty” will be turned on its head.

You wouldn’t be surprised to know that China has installed the largest centralized FRT system in the world. In China, data can be collected and analyzed from over 200 million CCTVs that the country owns. Additionally, there are 20 million specialized facial recognition cameras which continuously collect data for analysis. These systems are currently used by China to track and manipulate the behavior of ethnic Uyghur minorities in the camps set up in Xinjiang region. FRT was also used by China during democracy protests of Hong Kong to profile protestors to identify them. These steps raised concerns worldwide about putting an end to a person’s freedom of expression, right to privacy and basic dignity.

It is very likely that the same consequences will be faced by Indians if AFRS is established across the country.

There are several underlying concerns about implementing AFRS.

Firstly, this system has proven to be inefficient in several instances. In August 2018, Delhi police used a facial recognition system which was reported to have an accuracy rate of 2%. The FRT software used by the UK's Metropolitan Police returned more than a staggering 98% of false positives. Another instance was when American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) used Amazon’s face recognition software known as “Rekognition” to compare the images of the legislative members of American Congress with a database of criminal mugshots. To Amazon’s embarrassment, the results included 28 incorrect matches.. Another significant evidence of inefficiency was the outcome of an experiment performed by McAfee.  Here is what they did. The researchers used an algorithm known as CycleGAN which is used for image translation. CycleGAN is a software expert at morphing photographs. One can use the software to change horses into zebras and paintings into photographs. McAfee used the software to misdirect the Facial recognition algorithm. The team used 1500 photos of two members and fed them into CycleGAN which morphed them into one another and kept feeding the resulting images into different facial recognition algorithms to check who it recognized. After generating hundreds of such images, CycleGAN eventually generated a fake image which looked like person ‘A’ to the naked eye but managed to trick the FRT into thinking that it was person ‘B’. Owing to the dissatisfactory results, researchers expressed their concern about the inefficiency of FRTs. In fact mere eye-makeup can fool the FRT into allowing a person on a no-flight list to board the flight. This trend of inefficiency in the technology was noticed worldwide.

Secondly, facial recognition systems use machine learning technology. It is concerning and uncomfortable to note that FRT has often reflected the biases deployed in the society. Consequently, leading to several facial mismatches. A study by MIT shows that FRT routinely misidentifies people of color, women and young people. While the error rate was 8.1% for men, it was 20.6% for women. The error for women of color was 34%. The error values in the “supervised study” in a laboratory setting for a sample population is itself simply unacceptable. In the abovementioned American Civil Liberties Union study, the false matches were disproportionately African American and people of color. In India, 55% of prisoners undertrial are either Dalits, Adivasis, or Muslims although the combined population of all three just amounts to 39% of the total population (2011 census). If AFRS is trained on these records, it would definitely deploy the same socially held prejudices against the minority communities. Therefore, displaying inaccurate matches. The tender issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs had no indication of eliminating these biases nor did it have any mention of human-verifiable results. Using a system embedded with societal bias to replace biased human judgement defeats claims of technological neutrality. Deploying FRT systems in law enforcement will be ineffective at best and disastrous at worst.

Thirdly, the concerns of invasion of privacy and mass surveillance hasn’t been addressed satisfactorily. Facial Recognition makes data protection almost impossible as publicly available information is collected but they are analyzed to a point of intimacy. India does not have a well established data protection law given that “Personal data Protection Bill” is yet to be enforced. Implementing AFRS in the absence of a safeguard is a potential threat to our personal data. Moreover, police and other law enforcement agencies will have a great degree of discretion over our data which can lead to a mission creep. To add on to the list of privacy concerns, the bidder of AFRS will be largely responsible for maintaining confidentiality and integrity of data which will be stored apart from the established ISO standard. Additionally, the tender has no preference to “Make in India'' and shows absolutely no objections to foreign bidders and even to those having their headquarters in China, the hub of data breach .The is no governing system or legal limitations and restrictions to the technology. There is no legal standard set to ensure proportional use and protection to those who non-consensually interact with the system. Furthermore, the tender does not mention the definition of a “criminal”. Is a person considered a criminal when a charge sheet is filed against them? Or is it when the person is arrested? Or is it an individual convicted by the Court? Or is it any person who is a suspect? Since the word “criminal” isn’t definitely defined in the tender, the law enforcement agencies will ultimately be able to track a larger number of people than required.

The notion that AFRS will lead to greater efficacy must be critically questioned. San Francisco imposed a total ban on police use of facial recognition in May, 2019. Police departments in London are pressurized to put a stop to the use of FRT after several instances of discrimination and inefficiency. It would do well to India to learn from the mistakes of other countries rather than committing the same.

Read More