Presagis Unveils Three New Products at I/ITSEC

On the same subject

• 

  January 7, 2022 | Local, Naval

  Canada has no option but pivot away from current Surface Combatants path

• 

  January 7, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Security

  UAVs remain a persistent problem around Canadian airports

  by Ken Pole Transport Canada data on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) flown in or near controlled airspace in 2018 show that this remains a persistent problem, even as the federal government continues to work on updated regulations. Interim regulations in effect since last May prohibit UAVs inside controlled or restricted airspace, and require them to be flown at least 5.6 kilometres away from any area where aircraft take off or land. These regulations also require unmanned aircraft to be at least 1.9 kilometres away from heliports. UAVs must be flown only during daylight hours, always in line of sight, below 90 metres above ground level (AGL), and at least 30 to 76 metres from vehicles, vessels and the public. The only exception is for operations from a field or an event approved by the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada. Last summer, Transport Canada initiated two pilot projects involving emergency responders and several private companies which operate UAVs beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) in an attempt to collect safety information to help regulators understand the challenge. “Transport Canada has indicated that they have now completed a few operational tests and will continue their trials,” wrote aviation lawyer Auriol Marasco, a partner in the Toronto law firm Blake, Cassells & Graydon, in a Jan. 3 website article. “The industry is anxiously awaiting the results as they will provide key indications as to how the BVLOS operations will be regulated.” Marasco also said Transport will be releasing updated regulations for UAV operations within visual line-of-sight (VLOS). Updated rules were expected by the end of December, but a Transport Canada spokesperson told Skies in a Jan. 4 email that the department “continues to work on getting the final regulations published . . . as soon as possible in 2019.” Meanwhile, the department's Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) for last year–which could be amended as any year-end reports are incorporated–includes at least 123 reports involving UAVs not in compliance with the regulations. In some cases, the UAV was close enough for pilots to identify the make, model, and even estimate its weight. All major scheduled and charter carriers have filed reports about encounters at various altitudes, some within close proximity to runways. In June, the crew of an Air Inuit Boeing 737 on final approach 3.7 kilometres from Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport reported an orange UAV at some 360 metres AGL. At the same airport three months earlier, the tower advised an aircraft taking off that there was a UAV approximately 900 metres from the runway threshold at about 200 metres AGL. Quebec accounted for “only” eight CADORS reports in 2018. Given their traffic volumes, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta topped the list with 48, 37 and 16 reports, respectively. One of the B.C. reports came from the crew of an Air Canada Airbus A321 on final approach to Vancouver International Airport. Descending downwind, they reported a UAV “whizzing by” at approximately 7,000 feet AGL. In another notable incident, the Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre (VHFC) reported a UAV some 200 feet above the floatplane docks as a Seair Seaplanes aircraft was taxiing out for departure. The only other detail provided in the CADORS was that “the UAV operator was located and counselled by a VHFC representative” and that the UAV had been landed. Reports were filed by commercial, corporate, private and military fixed-wing and helicopter pilots as well as members of the public. In most cases, the CADORS notes “no impact on operations.” However, that wasn't the case last February with a Cessna 172S registered to B.C.-based Chinook Helicopters. On a training flight from Abbotsford to Chilliwack, as it turned on right base to Chilliwack, the pilot reported that the leading edge of his left wing had been struck by an unknown object. He landed without further incident and police were advised. No UAV debris was found but blue paint was evident on the Cessna's damaged area. It was a situation that clearly could have been much worse. https://www.skiesmag.com/news/uavs-remain-a-persistent-problem-around-canadian-airports

• 

  September 26, 2018 | Local, Security

  Artificial intelligence at border could infringe on human rights: report

  By Anna Desmarais Using artificial intelligence at Canada's official points of entry can lead to serious human rights violations, according to a new report. Released Wednesday by the University of Toronto's International Human Rights Program (IHRP) and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, the report says the use of artificial intelligence (AI) at regular points of entry is “quite risky” without appropriate government oversight. “We know that, in other contexts, AI is not neutral,” report author Petra Molnar told iPolitics. “It's basically like a recipe. If your recipe is biased, then the result that is going to come out of the algorithm is also going to be biased.” What these technologies could do, according to the report, is decide whether a marriage is genuine, an application is complete, or whether someone entering the country is deemed “a risk” to public safety. If the government doesn't provide more oversight, such decisions could rely on appearance, religion, or travel patterns as “proxies” for more relevant data normally gathered by immigration officials. This could compromise some quintessential human rights for immigrants and refugees at the border, including the right to equality and to be protected from discrimination under the law. The report says AI machines could be taught algorithms for how to assess “red flags,” “risks,” and “frauds” based on pre-existing biases in some of the immigration and refugee system's current regulations. For example, the report said the Designated Country of Origin list, which classifies which countries are “safe” for refugee claimants, uses an “incomplete” definition of safety that does not take into account specific risks for minority groups, such as women or members of the LGBTQ community. The use of AI technologies could mean cases are likely to be determined only based on these types of guidelines and might not include the discretion and empathy employed by immigration officials when reviewing the details of a refugee claim. “Depending on how an algorithm is designed, it may result in indirect discrimination,” the report found. “The complexity of human migration is not easily reducible to an algorithm.” If someone is triaged or flagged for early deportation, it could also affect their ability to apply for a visa, appeal a negative immigration ruling, or continue to move between borders. AI technologies also bring up procedural-rights issues, such as how a potential immigrant or refugee claimant would challenge the outcome of his case at the border. “When you introduce AI, if you don't agree with the decision, where do you appeal? And what kind of appeal are you crafting?” Molnar said. “These are all new questions we have to ask ourselves.” The report found that the government has been experimenting with artificial intelligence since 2014. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada confirmed to the report's authors in June it was already using an automated response to “triage,” or separate, simple claims from complicated ones that need further review. This summer, the government sent out an RFI (a preliminary procurement document) seeking an “Artificial Intelligence Solution” to provide legal support for migrants entering at formal points of entry. These investments fit into the federal government's $125-million Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy to “develop global thought leadership on the economic, ethical, policy and legal implications” of AI research throughout the country. Molnar said she heard from government officials that their use of AI is “preliminary” at best. What the government is considering, she continued, is using AI technologies only for preliminary screening. After AI technologies have reviewed a case, Molnar said immigration officers should still be asked to review the decision and make any appropriate changes. Molnar said it's still too soon to tell what AI could look like at the borders, but noted the technological changes could be vast. “It can be as simple as an Excel sheet, all the way to totally autonomous robots in other sectors,” she continued. “In immigration, how this could manifest ... could include a triage system where a traveller might be designated a high risk or low risk, or streamed for high risk and low risk.” To solve these possible human-rights infringements, the report suggests installing an independent, arms-length government-oversight body to “engage in all aspects of oversight,” before the government continues to develop these technologies. This recommendation, Molnar said, is in line with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's review into responsible use of AI throughout government offices. Among other recommendations, the board suggests more transparency from government offices about when AI technologies will be used during a discretionary decision-making process. The report notes this suggestion “is promising, from a human-rights perspective,” but the document is non-binding and is still subject to change. Until the review body is created, the report suggests government freeze “all efforts to procure, develop or adopt” any new automated-decision-system technology before a government oversight process is in place. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/09/26/artificial-intelligence-at-border-could-infringe-on-human-rights-report/