Slashdot Mirror


Iranian Police Tracking Dissidents Using Tech From Western Companies

chrb writes "A recent article at Bloomberg discusses Western companies supplying monitoring equipment to Iran. There are few regulations restricting the sale of intelligence monitoring systems to the Iranian government, and large corporations like Ericsson and Nokia have supplied the equipment used to identify dissidents and suppress anti-government protests. '[One such system from Creativity Software] can record a person’s location every 15 seconds — eight times more frequently than a similar system the company sold in Yemen, according to company documents. A tool called "geofences" triggers an alarm when two targets come in close proximity to each other. The system also stores the data and can generate reports of a person's movements. A former Creativity Software manager said the Iran system was far more sophisticated than any other systems the company had sold in the Middle East.'"

29 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Profit! by wsxyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, we're not in business to preserve human rights. In fact, we would be legally liable for failing our fiduciary duty to our shareholders if we failed to pursue the lucrative oppression-assistance market. We were incorporated to pursue profit and, by golly, that's what we're doing!

    1. Re:Profit! by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really, it's just the corporations getting practice for when they have to track the dissidents for their own purposes. Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    2. Re:Profit! by Bardwick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know your trying to take a shot, but to answer your question, yes. When did a company become responsible for governments using/misusing thier technology/product? Our own govt. (U.S.) uses Sun boxes and Cisco switches to monitor ME. Think the US government isn't using similar software/hardware to monitor dissidents (Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, Neo Nazi, etc..). It's a snow job blaming big companies (which is all the rage today). It reminds me when global warming fired up, even the traffic reports changed: Before global warming debate: "Intoxicated man ran over a pedestrian." After: "Intoxicated driver's SUV ran over a pedestrian".

    3. Re:Profit! by Bardwick · · Score: 2

      I'm just jealous of the people that do have a trying when 99% of us don't have a trying. Not fair.

    4. Re:Profit! by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know your trying to take a shot, but to answer your question, yes. When did a company become responsible for governments using/misusing thier technology/product? Our own govt. (U.S.) uses Sun boxes and Cisco switches to monitor ME. Think the US government isn't using similar software/hardware to monitor dissidents (Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, Neo Nazi, etc..). It's a snow job blaming big companies (which is all the rage today). It reminds me when global warming fired up, even the traffic reports changed: Before global warming debate: "Intoxicated man ran over a pedestrian." After: "Intoxicated driver's SUV ran over a pedestrian".

      You're an idiot. As a civil society with democratic norms we draw limits to commerce all of the time. For example, we don't allow people to sell human body parts because of the perverse incentives it would create. We could, if we wanted, limit sale of such technology to those countries that misuse it and punish those countries that don't follow suit. The fact is that we, as a society, don't really care that much. Oh, we talk about how horrible it is, but when it comes to hard decisions we always take the easy way out by spouting the kind of nonsense you just did. As far as America doing it too, so what? We are talking about Iran.

    5. Re:Profit! by Bardwick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm an idiot because your arguing a different point (which i agree with oddly). My point is that it's not up to the individual business to decided who is nice enough to buy thier technology. If Nokia sold them equipment/technology that was against U.S. policy, then by all means, prosecute. Use your own examples, They are all illegal. What Nokia did was legal. I take issue with some business practices, but I'm also going to call bullshit when I see it. GE paid no taxes so GE=bad. Why? Did they follow all current tax laws? Yes? Did they get write downs for losing thier ass the year before (shh.. it's a secret), yes. Ask yourself, "Can Krogers decide to not sell food to Muslims?". In short, if you want something illegal, make it illegal. BTW, as the IDIOT of the group, can you point out, in any way the part of your post the refutes mine?

    6. Re:Profit! by Tsingi · · Score: 2

      I had a trying marriage, does that count?

      The fault there could have been the lack of my trying though. It was all very confusing.

    7. Re:Profit! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My point is that it's not up to the individual business to decided who is nice enough to buy thier technology.

      It is up to every individual, whether they're a blue-collar working-class stiff, or CEO of a Fortune 500, to make ethical decisions.

      Anyone who sold surveillance equipment to Iran knew they were making an unethical sale, but they simply didn't give a shit. Legality isn't ethics, so the defense that it was legal is just another way of saying that they don't give a shit about ethics or morals, they only care about any consequences they personally may face.

      We try to make unethical business practices illegal, because we know the sociopaths running many corporations will not behave ethically willingly. Often this happens as a consequence of them engaging in unethical activity and using the "well it was legal" excuse.

      Not everyone behaves ethically only to the extent that the law requires them to. Including CEOs. It is an individual choice to do so.

      So sure, maybe selling this equipment to Iran was legal for the companies that did it. It was still unethical, it was still wrong, and I will not refrain from saying so.

      The idea that because they can't be prosecuted for doing it, that therefore it wasn't unethical, or that it isn't their responsibility to be ethical, is the argument of amoral cads with no ethics to begin with.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Profit! by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      You know though if any of those companies took the moral highroad and said "no" someone else would just do it. This is one of the VERY VERY few cases were government should act.

      By act I mean pass very simple regulations that stipulate you can't sell shit to anyone on the rogue state list. Going through an intermediary does not work either, if knowing sell to someone who is likely to redistribute the goods to a rogue state, you still responsible. Then you add some punitive fines that don't go so earmarked nonsense but to the general treasury.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  2. This is totally inexcusable by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

    Now if we could just get our Western governments to stop using the same bullshit...

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  3. Yeah, and? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally I'm more concerned about this tech being used to track people in Western nations.

  4. Ethics by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me just say: fuck Creativity Software and fuck any programmer willing to work for them. There's this thing called 'ethics' and if they choose to violate the most basic premises to enable people to do shit like this, the outcomes are also on *their* heads. None of this "just doing my job" bullshit.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
    1. Re:Ethics by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably. This is how oppression works. Not just simply by forcing people to do things--too labor intensive--but by stacking the deck against them so they feel they have no choice but to participate in the BS because they have to put food on the table. BS is institutionalized.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  5. What's the solution, then? by liquidweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FYI - I couldn't be more against despotic regimes, I don't fly because of the TSA... I'm not an apologist.
    I do; however, have the same question anytime this article runs on Slashdot (Bluecoat /Syria was before this one)
    If you are Ericcson/Cisco/Bluecoat/Juniper/etc, how do you ensure your tech never ends up being used for "evil"?
    Who is evil? Should network filtering equipment be declared munitions and its export controlled? Should they include a killswitch so if it gets in the hands of an evil dictator it can be disabled? Should Nokia do background checks on all potential buyers to try to predict whether or not they are straw purchasers for evil entities?

    Both of those ideas some either really far fetched, impractical, or inethical in themselves... so my question is - if you feel a hatin' rising up after reading this about Ericcson/Nokia - what should they do?

    --
    mov ah, 4ch
    int 21h
  6. Businesses are not the only ones doing this by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the weapons that have flooded the third world come from Russia (or the Soviet Union in the past), China or a handful of other countries that routinely ignore international law and protocol on arms dealing. Where was the outrage when the Libyan rebels found all of those brand new Chinese weapons from the Chinese state-owned weapons makers in Gaddafi's posession? Ever notice the dearth of American weapons in all of the third world killing zones?

    Frankly, I don't think the pursuit of profit is any more crass than the pursuit of political influence. Either way, you are putting your own good above doing the right thing.

    1. Re:Businesses are not the only ones doing this by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      America makes some fine weapons systems in the cruise missle/air superiority fighter category. Conflicts in the third world usually swing more on lower-level weapons such as rifles and grenades and the like, which the Russians and Chinese do very well (some would argue better than the Americans).

      About a year ago I was noodling around in the desert in Nevada and found dozens of expended cartridge shells. I picked them up and brought them home. The marking was "bxn 85", which I found to be a style of rifle popular in Russia from the time of the Tsars to the present, the 7.62mm54R. Oddly enough you can go into a Big 5 sporting goods and find a rifle which uses these shells (still commonly produced in Poland and Czech Republic) for $90 to $120, depending upon when they are on Sale. Comparable to any 30-06, which was a military rifle before becoming popular with hunters/sport shooters.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Businesses are not the only ones doing this by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ever notice the dearth of American weapons in all of the third world killing zones?

      No, actually - first off, I've never been there, so I have no firsthand knowledge. Second, with the amount of American-backed violence in those Third World 'killing zones', I figure they must have handed the guys we've decided are on our side at least a few American weapons.

      There's also a practical reason for preferring the Russian-made weapons over American-made: The AK-47 is cheaper to make, and easier to maintain, repair, and clean.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Businesses are not the only ones doing this by modecx · · Score: 2

      The difference between .30-06 M1 ball and surplus 7.62x54r is a muzzle velocity of about 50-100fps for a bullet of comparable weight, out of a barrel of comparable length, with the very slight edge going to .30-06. .30-06 and 7.62x54r is the apt comparison, as each was designed originally for bolt action service rifles, and each was later adopted to various machine gun applications.

      Also, by the time 7.62x51 NATO was adopted, each of the above cartridges had already been in service for about a half century.

      Funny enough, it doesn't matter whether the rifle in question is a 1903 Springfield or a Remington, Browning, Savage, hunting rifle or battle rifle, owners usually refer to their their rifles as "mah thirty-aught-six"

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    4. Re:Businesses are not the only ones doing this by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2

      "AK47, the very best there is... when you absolutely, positively gotta kill every motherfucker in the room... accept no substitutes"

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  7. Blaming the gun shop? by poity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Didn't past articles say they were smuggled into Iran by Dubai-based buyers?
    I guess we can have a debate about how many degrees of separation is needed for effective export restrictions, but I don't know how we can ever draw the lines to be reasonable.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  8. Re:Anti-Iran sentiment by itchythebear · · Score: 2

    You're praising EA?!?!? Did a brain slug land on your head right after your tin foil hat fell off?

    --
    If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
  9. Re:Anti-Iran sentiment by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    I think it means you lack the flexibility to interpret language in practice.

    What, are you a computer? Deal with it, it wasn't hard to understand the intended meaning from context.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  10. Re:Anti-Iran sentiment by niftydude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Your post is a bit incoherent - are you trying to accuse me of being paranoid?

    Here's some reading for you.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/iran-nuclear-ambitions-secret-war

    Come back when you have a clearer picture of your country's current political strategy.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  11. IBM did the same thing in WWII by Kagato · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in WWII IBM's Brazilian division kept working with and suppling IBM's German division. The IBM's Hollerith punch card system was updated to be the workflow system for the holocaust. According to the author of the book IBM and the Holocaust when IBM USA found out IBM Brazil was still working with German division their response was a request no longer to be told of the activities. At the same time IBM was one of the few companies that knew when the D-Day invasion would be as it was actively using computer power to predict the best weather for the invasion.

  12. Re:Anti-Iran sentiment by liquidweaver · · Score: 2

    Oh, I think I have a really clear picture of my countries' political strategy. Coinsidering I'm stuck with it, and no candidate I vote for makes a difference, and I am forced to pay into it (our military spending is 2 magnitudes bigger than what we spend on education), it's somewhat depressing to think about. Occasionally, I intentionally try to blind myself by making levity of the situation because it is truly depressing.
    My comment was meant as a goofy side note, I don't want to water down your message - more power to you.

    --
    mov ah, 4ch
    int 21h
  13. Puh-leeze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You must be joking. The US is the world's largest exporter of weapons. Amongst the countries the US exports weapons to, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan and Israel have recently been in the news for their "killing fields".

    Of course, what the US govt does is make a list of evil doers and good guys. This list has little to do with killing fields or human rights, but rather political convenience and the lobbying of the arms industry. Then when someone sells to the side that the US govt doesn't like or couldn't sell to, there is much screaming about "international protocol" (ie. the list drawn up by the US and its rapidly dwindling allies).

    Just because the US makes a list doesn't mean it's true or anyone else accepts it—don't be such a tool.

  14. Hog Wash by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, we would be legally liable for failing our fiduciary duty to our shareholders

    This is not strictly true, though it is often quoted from someplace, usually someoneâ(TM)s ass.

    A company has the responsibility to do what is best for the stockholders. There is NO law requiring publically traded companies to pursue profit above all other considerations.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  15. Re:Anti-Iran sentiment by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nobody, except the sickest, craziest Zionists and right-wing Republicans -- is that stupid. Like the Burmese junta, the mad mullahs of Tehran are a hydra-headed beast; cutting off a few heads won't destroy the beast. With this lot, change clearly has to come from within.

    Or should I say, their system needs a few decades to rot from within; their ideological rigidity and zeal will ensure that they won't be able to adapt to circumstances, and they'll eventually be blown away by the winds of change before they even know what hit them.

    So what, if these monkeys get nukes? If they ever dare to use them, they'll be obliterated, and they know it. Even animals have survival instincts. Why not just LET them waste the money and resources building useless weapons. A dollar spent building a centrifuge, is a dollar not spent on far more threatening conventional arms, or terror operations.

    All we have to do is sit back, play the long game, and wait.

  16. Re:Anti-Iran sentiment by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    er... oops?

    Still. If read aloud (physically or in your head) you should hear the same (or very similar) sound. This should not be very difficult to puzzle out.

    I remember working through less easy issues in a first-year Spanish class, so there really is no excuse for being such a bitch about it.

    We're not writing term papers or treaties, here.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...